Board of Supervisors Agenda 1/27/2015

AGENDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SONOMA COUNTY 575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE, ROOM 102A SANTA ROSA, CA 95403

TUESDAY JANUARY 27, 2015 8:30 A.M. (The regular afternoon session commences at 2:00 p.m.)

Susan Gorin First District Veronica A. Ferguson County Administrator David Rabbitt Second District Bruce Goldstein County Counsel Shirlee Zane Third District James Gore Fourth District Efren Carrillo Fifth District

This is a simultaneous meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Board of Commissioners of the Community Development Commission, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, the Board of Directors of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, the Sonoma County Public Finance Authority, and as the governing board of all special districts having business on the agenda to be heard this date. Each of the foregoing entities is a separate and distinct legal entity.

The Board welcomes you to attend its meetings which are regularly scheduled each Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. Your interest is encouraged and appreciated.

AGENDAS AND MATERIALS: Agendas and most supporting materials are available on the Board’s website at http://www.sonoma-county.org/board/. Due to legal, copyright, privacy or policy considerations, not all materials are posted online. Materials that are not posted are available for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A, Santa Rosa, CA.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Board of Supervisors office at 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A, Santa Rosa, CA, during normal business hours.

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an accommodation, an alternative format, or requires another person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (707) 565-2241, as soon as possible to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

Public Transit Access to the County Administration Center: Sonoma County Transit: Rt. 20, 30, 44, 48, 60, 62 Santa Rosa CityBus: Rt. 14 Golden Gate Transit: Rt. 80 For transit information call (707) 576-RIDE or 1-800-345-RIDE or visit or http://www.sctransit.com/

APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar includes routine financial and administrative actions that are usually approved by a single majority vote. There will be no discussion on these items prior to voting on the motion unless Board Members or the public request specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.

PUBLIC COMMENT Any member of the audience desiring to address the Board on a matter on the agenda: Please walk to the podium and after receiving recognition from the Chair, please state your name and make your comments. In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, please be brief and limit your comments to the subject under discussion. Each person is usually granted 3 minutes to speak; time limitations are at the discretion of the Chair. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act, Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.

January 27, 2015 8:30 A.M. CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

I. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Items may be added or withdrawn from the agenda consistent with State law.)

II. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

III. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 27)

PRESENTATIONS/GOLD RESOLUTIONS (Items 1 through 4)

PRESENTATIONS AT THE BOARD MEETING

1. Adopt a Gold Resolution honoring the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation for 25 years of conserving, restoring and inspiring public appreciation of its wetlands. (Fifth District)

PRESENTATIONS AT A DIFFERENT DATE

2. Adopt a Gold Resolution recognizing the lifetime accomplishments of William Kortum. (Second District)

3. Adopt a Gold Resolution commending American AgCredit as recipient of the Sonoma County Winegrape Association Nick Frey Community Contribution Award for their work in assisting growers, farmers and ranchers to stay in business. (Fourth District)

4. Adopt a Gold Resolution commending the PDI Surgery Center on seven years of improving the health of Northern California children through their unique program of treatment, outreach and education. (Fourth District)

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

5. Authorize the Chair to execute an agreement with New Ways to Work to provide consulting services for the Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps Program for the amount of $124,800; agreement terminates on September 30, 2016.

6. Russian River Biological Opinion - Cost Share Agreement – Authorize the General Manager to sign a mutual in-kind Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to determine if they can provide funding for habitat enhancement work in Dry Creek, to end when the feasibility study is complete. (Fourth District)

2 January 27, 2015 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

7. Determine that the Howlett Forest conservation easement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and direct the General Manager of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District to file a Notice of Exemption in compliance with C.E.Q.A. (Fifth District)

AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

8. Authorize the Agricultural Commissioner to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Marin County for VESCO technical assistance services, as needed with no specified termination date, to be reimbursed on an at cost basis, and find that the MOU will not adversely impact private sector individuals and companies.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

9. Approve Advertising Program grant awards and authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract with the following entities for advertising and promotions activities for Fiscal Year 2014-15: Cotati Accordion Festival, Inc., $1,000 and American Legion Post 28 for Veterans Day Parade, $1,056. (Second District)

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

10. Authorize the Chair to execute an amendment to the Personal Services Agreement with Kathleen Kane as Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, commencing on January 27, 2015 through January 14, 2018.

COUNTY COUNSEL

11. Adopt a Resolution revising the conflict of interest code for the County of Sonoma.

3 January 27, 2015 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

COUNTY COUNSEL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (Commissioners: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

12. Conflict of Interest Code Amendments- (A) Acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Adopt a Resolution approving the amendment to the Community Development Commission’s Conflict of Interest Code. (B) Acting as the Board of Supervisors in its role as code reviewing body, Adopt Resolutions approving conflict of interest code amendments for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District, Sonoma Charter School, Russian River Fire Protection District, Geyserville Fire Protection District, Petaluma Health Care District, Palm Drive Health Care District, Sonoma County Fair & Exposition, Inc., Sonoma County Water Agency and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Mark West Union School District, Sonoma County Fish & Wildlife Commission, Valley of the Moon Water District, Rains Creek Water District, River Montessori Charter School, Rincon Valley Union School District, Old Adobe Union School District, Camp Meeker Recreation & Park District, Town of Windsor Water District, Kenwood School District, Stony Point Academy, Wright Elementary School District and Graton Fire Protection District.

GENERAL SERVICES/HEALTH SERVICES

13. Mental Health Crisis Facility Relocation and Expansion – Authorize the Chair to execute a Master Services Agreement Task Order with TLCD Architecture to provide professional design services for tenant improvements for leased space at 2225 Challenger Way, Santa Rosa, CA, for an amount not-to-exceed $313,020.

HEALTH SERVICES

14. Driving Under the Influence Program Fee Increase – (A) Adopt a Resolution establishing amended fees to recover projected costs of providing Driving Under the Influence Program services for the Department of Health Services effective January 27, 2015. (B) Authorize the Department to commence an assessment of alternative service delivery models for its Driving Under the Influence program.

15. Authorize the Director of Health Services to execute an agreement with Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. to develop Medical-Health Incident Response Guides, for the period January 27, 2015 through December 31, 2015, in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000.

4 January 27, 2015 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

HUMAN RESOURCES AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NORTHERN SONOMA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (Directors/Commissioners: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

16. Authorize the Interim Director of Human Resources to execute a Participating Entity Service Agreement with the California State Association of Counties – Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA) for utilization of Systema Software LLC’s Risk Management Information System (SIMS), at a one-time cost of $196,480, an annual fee starting at $23,024 (with annual CPI adjustments), and automatic renewals until cancelled.

HUMAN SERVICES

17. Authorize the Director of Human Services to execute agreement amendments with the Council on Aging (COA) for senior nutrition, and Senior Advocacy Services (SAS) for Ombudsman Services and Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy, increasing the contracts by $82,846 for COA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,366,619; and $36,249 for SAS, for a not-to-exceed amount of $605,839, with both contracts beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015.

PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

18. Authorize the Director of the Permit and Resource Management Department to execute agreements with two engineering consulting firms, Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers and Green Valley Consulting, to provide grading permit application grading and drainage plan check review services on an as-needed basis, for a not-to-exceed amount of $48,000 for each contract, with both contracts beginning January 27, 2015 and ending January 26, 2016.

PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

19. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chair of the Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors (Penngrove Sanitation Zone) to execute an Outside Service Area Agreement for public sewer service to the property located at 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California; APN: 047-213-022. (Second District)

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

20. Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application – United States Army Corps of Engineers Lake Sonoma/Yorky Creek Recreational Area – Adopt a Resolution approving the submittal of an application to the United States Department of Transportation for a grant to repair and pave 3.5 miles of Hot Springs Road #10005 for $956,124. (Fourth District)

5 January 27, 2015 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

21. Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application - United States Coast Guard Training Facility - Adopt a Resolution approving the submittal of an application to the United States Department of Transportation for a grant to rehabilitate and pave 1.69 miles of Tomales Road (#5803) and 7.17 miles of Spring Hill Road (#5705B), as well as analysis of the Tomales Road Bridge over Stemple Creek (20C0116) for $4,127,800. (Second District)

22. Design Engineering and Landscape Architecture Services for Highway 101 at Airport Blvd. Interchange – Authorize the Chair to sign an agreement with BKF Engineers, Inc. for the Highway 101 at Airport Blvd. Landscape Project (G14001) for an amount not-to-exceed $384,551, which includes a 10% contingency, with a term ending 24 months from the date of execution. (Fourth District)

MISCELLANEOUS

23. Approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 13, 2015 for the following: Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Community Development Commission, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Occidental County Sanitation District, Russian River County Sanitation District, South Park County Sanitation District, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Board of Supervisors; and Approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 13, 2015 for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS (Items 24 through 27)

24. Approve the reappointment of Ramon Meraz to the Commission on Human Rights for a two- year term beginning on February 27, 2015 and ending on February 28, 2017. (Fifth District)

25. Approve the reappointment of Christopher Kerosky to the Commission on Human Rights for a two-year term beginning on February 27, 2015 and ending on February 28, 2017. (Fifth District)

26. Approve the reappointment of Judy Rice to the Commission on Human Rights for a two-year term through September 30, 2016. (Fifth District)

27. Approve the reappointment of Paul Kelley to the North Coast Railroad Authority Board for a two-year term through April 16, 2016. (Countywide)

6 January 27, 2015 IV. REGULAR CALENDAR (Items 28 through 31)

HEALTH SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

28. Accept an update on the National Leadership Academy for the Public’s Health Sonoma County Healthy Aging initiative, including progress on developing an Aging Together Sonoma County framework for action.

GENERAL SERVICES

29. New Fleet and Materials Lab Facility – (A) Approve a preliminary design for a new Light Fleet and Materials Lab facility on County- owned property located on Russell Avenue, Santa Rosa. Total estimated cost, including relocation of the Motor Pool at the County Government Center, is $9,958,172. (B) Approve a contract with Kwan Henmi Architects for preparation of construction documents, and bid phase services, in the amount not-to-exceed $398,000, from February 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

30. Receive an Update on Pension Reform Effort, and authorize advance payment on Unfunded Pension Liabilities by Approving a Resolution adjusting retirement rates through June 30, 2015.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

31. Approve a contribution, in the amount of $1,000, to Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy’s workshop: A Call to Advance Social Equity Workshop.

7 January 27, 2015 V. CLOSED SESSION CALENDAR (Items 32 through 36)

32. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation – Renewed Efforts of Neighbors Against Landfill Expansion (“RENALE”) an unincorporated association vs. County of Sonoma, a political subdivision of the State of California; Sonoma Compost Company, a corporation; Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, a public agency, U.S. District Court-Northern District Case No.: 3:14-cv- 03804 TEH. (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)).

33. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Julia Donoho v. County of Sonoma et.al., SCV 256177 (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)).

34. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4), Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians.

35. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Potential initiation of litigation – Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)).

36. The Board of Supervisors, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Board of Commissioners of the Community Development Commission, and the Board of Directors of the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiators: Christina Cramer/Carol Allen. Employee organization: All. Unrepresented employees: All, including retired employees (Govt. Code Section 54957.6 (b)).

8 January 27, 2015 VI. REGULAR AFTERNOON CALENDAR (Items 37 through 40)

RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION

37. Report on Closed Session.

38. 2:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA (Comments are restricted to matters within the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board will hear public comments at this time for up to thirty minutes. Please be brief and limit your comments to three minutes. Any additional public comments will be heard at the conclusion of the meeting. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act, Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.)

39. Permit and Resource Management Department: Review and possible action on the following: a) Acts and Determinations of Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Adjustments b) Acts and Determinations of Project Review and Advisory Committee c) Acts and Determinations of Design Review Committee d) Acts and Determinations of Landmarks Commission e) Administrative Determinations of the Director of Permit and Resource Management

(All materials related to these actions and determinations can be reviewed at: http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/b-c/index.htm)

40. ADJOURNMENTS

NOTE: The next scheduled meeting will be held on January 30, 2015.

Upcoming Hearings (All dates are tentative until each agenda is finalized.)

1. February 10th (PM) – Re-adoption of the Official Zoning Database for the Coastal Zone including a digitized Coast Zone Boundary, ORD 14-0004, Fifth District.

9 Agenda Item Number: 1 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Prior Board Actions:

Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Recognizing The Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation In Celebration Of 25 Years Of Conservation And Preservation Of Its Wetlands

Whereas, the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation has for 25 years been working to conserve, restore and inspire public appreciation for this important natural resource; and

Whereas, the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation’s educational programs reach out to young and old in our community fostering greater understanding about our regional ecology, the importance of restoration practices, Conservation Science, and the impacts of climate change on our fragile natural world ; and

Whereas, the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation’s location at Stone Farm furthers the preservation of one of the earliest settled farmsteads in Sonoma County, and their efforts have improved this site for generations to come; and

Whereas, in 2011, after much advocacy by the Foundation, the Laguna de Santa Rosa was recognized as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; and

Whereas, the County of Sonoma has partnered with the Laguna Foundation many times to restore and steward the Laguna’s natural resources; and

Whereas, February 2, 2015 is World Wetlands Day;

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the County of Sonoma congratulates and shows its appreciation to the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation on its 25th Anniversary and its long partnership with the County.

Resolution # Date: Page 2

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Agenda Item Number: 2 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board of Supervisors Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor David Rabbitt, 707/565-2241 Second District Title: Gold Resolution Recommended Actions: Adopt a Gold Resolution Honoring and Recognizing the Lifetime Accomplishments of William Kortum. Executive Summary:

Prior Board Actions:

Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of The Board of Supervisors of The County of Sonoma, State of California, Honoring and Recognizing the Lifetime Accomplishments of William Kortum

Whereas William Kortum was born on July 22, 1927and raised on a farm in Petaluma, and

Whereas he graduated from Petaluma High School’s class of 1945, attended Santa Rosa Junior College and graduated from the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis class of 1952, and

Whereas following service in the army veterinary corp, he established a veterinary practice in Cotati, specializing in bovine veterinary medicine, and

Whereas in the early 1960s Dr. Kortum was president of the Cotati Chamber of Commerce and spearheaded the placement of Sonoma State College on East Cotati Avenue and worked tirelessly with other founders of the City of Cotati to incorporate that city and include the college within its city limits, and

Whereas his participation with family and friends in the successful fight during the late 1950s and early 1960s resulted in PG&E’s cancellation of construction of a nuclear power plant on Bodega Head, and

Whereas he worked with Chuck Rhinehart, Chuck Hinkle, Dick Day and others to form Californians Organized to Acquire Access to State Tidelands (COAAST) and opposed the efforts of developers to cut off 13 miles of coastal access at Sea Ranch, and

Whereas he led ensuing campaigns that resulted in the voter-approved formation of the California Coastal Commission in 1972 and related legislation four years later that extended to the public unprecedented rights to access the state’s 1,100 miles of shoreline and closely oversee its development and,

Whereas his vast contributions to the county he loved so much included preservation of open space and agricultural land through the creation of community separators and urban growth boundaries, the founding of the Sonoma County Farmlands Group, the establishment of the Sonoma County Open Space District, the creation of SMART, and the creation of Sonoma County Conservation Action, and Resolution # Date: Page 2

Whereas Dr. Kortum died at home of prostate cancer on December 19, 2014, while still campaigning for public access to Petaluma’s Lafferty Ranch, and

Whereas, this beloved veterinarian, environmentalist and political activist was a mentor to many and an inspiration to all, earning the reputation as father of the Sonoma County Environmental Movement, and

Whereas, a popular segment of the California Coastal Trail on the Sonoma coast from Goat Rock extending to Wrights Beach bears his name, the Kortum Trail, and pays tribute to the rich legacy he left to all of us;

Now Therefore be it Resolved that Sonoma County Board of Supervisors honors and recognizes Bill Kortum’s lifetime of advocacy, activism, quiet tenacity, and sharp intellect which has left an indelible mark on Sonoma County, and will be sorely missed by all.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Agenda Item Number: 3 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board of Supervisors Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor James Gore 707-565-2241 4th District Title: Gold Resolution Recommended Actions: Approve Gold Resolution commending American AgCredit as recipient of the Sonoma County Winegrape Assoc. Nick Frey Community Contribution Award for their work in assisting growers, farmers and ranchers stay in business Executive Summary:

Prior Board Actions:

Strategic Plan Alignment

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 4/5 Vote Requires

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Commending American AgCredit as recipient of the Nick Frey Community Contribution Award

Whereas, American AgCredit helps the growers, farmers and ranchers of the Sonoma County Winegrowers Association to stay in business, and

Whereas, American AgCredit provides financial support to fit the unique needs for growers, farmers and ranchers, and

Whereas, American Ag Credit is a vital business partner to growers to keep Sonoma County green, both in landscape and in dollars, and

Whereas, American AgCredit provides substantial support of the grape growing community through volunteering and financial sponsorships, and

Whereas, American AgCredit has special programs for “Young Farmers and Ranchers” age 35 and younger, to provide financial assistance for those who are just getting started, and

Whereas, American Ag Credit sponsors, supports and volunteers in educational activities. They support education and training for students, including: school career days at all educational levels; provide college scholarships. Supports 4-H and FA Chapter events, and

Whereas, American AgCredit provides programs to support young people who want to become grape growers and farmers. Nurturing the next generation that is critical for the survival of the industry.

Resolution # Date: Page 2

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma hereby commends American AgCredit as recipient of the Sonoma County Winegrape Commision’s Nick Frey Community Contribution award for their support given to growers and agriculture community and for their important efforts to encourage our next generation of growers.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Agenda Item Number: 4 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board of Supervisors Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor James Gore 707-565-2241 4th District Title: Gold Resolution Recommended Actions: Approve Gold Resolution commending the PDI Surgery Center on seven years of improving the health of Northern California children through their unique program of treatment, outreach and education.

Executive Summary:

Prior Board Actions:

Strategic Plan Alignment

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, PDI Surgery Center Celebrating 7 Years of Healthy Smiles

Whereas: PDI Surgery Center’s mission is to maintain a sustainable dentistry resource that will serve the low income children of Northern California who need safe sedation for dental treatment, and to provide prevention education and promote oral health, and

Whereas: PDI Surgery Center is a unique and innovative model of surgery healthcare, to which over 100 rural and urban community dental clinics and mobile vans refer patients for specialty care that cannot be safely done in a clinic setting, and

Whereas: PDI has become a dental home for thousands of children with developmental disabilities, including those with autism, who return to PDI for regular care that they cannot otherwise receive PDI has treated more than 12,500 children for severe tooth decay throughout 32 Northern California counties since January 2008, and

Whereas: Dental decay is the most common chronic disease in children, more common than asthma, obesity and hay fever, and

Whereas: Severe tooth decay among children is a nationwide epidemic, and prevents children from succeeding academically and socially from growing healthy and strong, and

Whereas: A community with healthy children will create a healthy society; and healthy smiles are a crucial part of overall health, and

Whereas: PDI Surgery Center and its partners collaborate to help prevent tooth decay, through prevention education, community outreach, nutrition and oral hygiene education, and

Whereas: The board, staff, volunteers and PDI’s mascot, Snappy Chompers, believe that every child deserves healthy teeth and work hard to make children smile. Resolution # Date: January 27, 2015 Page 2

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County hereby commends and congratulates PDI Surgery Center on seven years of improving the health of Northern California children through their unique program of treatment, outreach and education.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Agenda Item Number: 5 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Directors, Sonoma County Water Agency Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Sonoma County Water Agency Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Ann DuBay 524-8378 All Title: Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps Program Recommended Actions: Authorize Chair to execute an agreement with New Ways to Work to provide consulting services for Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps Program for the amount of $124,800; agreement terminates on September 30, 2016. Executive Summary: HISTORY OF ITEM/BACKGROUND In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $1.2 billion nationwide for youth and young adult workforce programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Approximately $1.2 million in funding was provided through the state to Sonoma County and a coalition of groups including the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency), Sonoma County Workforce Investment Board, Sonoma County Human Services Department, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Sonoma County Office of Education and contracted community based organizations established the Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (Youth Ecology Corps) program. Each summer the program provides local youth ages 14- 24 with paychecks, environmental education, and work experience. Since 2009 Youth Ecology Corps has employed more the 1,400 youth and has worked on projects supporting the work of the Water Agency, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Regional Parks, the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and more than 30 cities, towns and non-profit agencies. The Water Agency is a founding partner and provides funding for crews that work on creeks and streams, manages the environmental education component of the program and coordinates (in conjunction with Human Services and other partners) funding sustainability, replication, legislative efforts and outreach. Since 2009, New Ways to Work provides advice and consulting to the Water Agency on these efforts. With the design assistance of New Ways to Work, the program now includes two Water Agency “extended crews” that work through mid-October on Water Agency projects, plus one year-round crew; and four community service days annually. Other successes include the creation of Youth Ecology Corps in Marin, Napa, Riverside, and Contra Costa counties and with the assistance of New Ways to Work, a partnership with the Parks Alliance of Sonoma County called Youth@Work in Our

Revision No. 20140617-1 Parks. This program was funded exclusively through grants, donations, and partnerships and resulted in additional crews being hired for the 2013 and 2014 summer seasons. The goal of Youth Ecology Corps replication in other communities is to create an alliance of similar organizations to advocate for funding and program enhancements and to share best practices. The passage of the 2014 federal Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (Act) resulted in substantive changes in youth employment programs; in October, the Youth Ecology Corps communities gathered for a one-day workshop in Sonoma County to discuss these changes and other funding and programmatic issues.

SELECTION PROCESS In October 2014, the Water Agency issued a Request for Statements of Qualifications to the following three firms: New Ways to Work, Sebastopol, California; Glen Price Group, El Cerrito, California; and The Bridgespan Group, San Francisco, California. The Request for Statements of Qualifications was also posted on the Water Agency’s website.

New Ways to Work was the only firm to submit a Statements of Qualifications. The following criteria were used to evaluate New Ways to Work’s qualifications: responsiveness to the work requirements; professional qualifications and overall performance commitment; demonstrated ability to perform the work in accordance with good practices common to the industry; exceptions to standard terms in the sample agreement; and Local Service Provider preference. New Ways to Work was determined to be qualified to perform the work because it has a deep understanding of the program and partnerships; was responsible for the initial program design and implementation of the Youth Ecology Corps, guiding its program development and implementation, and documenting its early success; has in-depth regional, state and national experience in providing strategic support to assist Youth Councils (formed under the Workforce Investment Act) with building their capacity to provide age-appropriate, developmental services to young people; and is a nationally recognized technical assistance and training organization. New Ways to Work’s approach is to utilize state-of-the-art process tools and organizational change methodologies commonly used in the private sector and to work closely with governmental entities, foundations, and local communities to design and implement strategies and solutions to identified issues, problems, or priorities relating to youth and the institutions that serve them. Water Agency does not have the expertise and resources to conduct this work with in-house staff.

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Under the proposed agreement, New Ways to Work will assist the Water Agency in developing sustainable funding sources for the Youth Ecology Corps. The 2014 Act provides new challenges and opportunities for youth employment programs, including a focus on older, out-of-school youth and a stronger link to permanent employment. Under the proposed agreement, New Ways to Work will assist the Water Agency in program improvements to better utilize crews and to enhance education and job linkages that align with the new Act. Additional tasks in the scope of work include coordination of partner calls and meeting, coordination of visits for state and federal representatives; review and coordination of press releases and packets, updates to and implementation of the Youth Ecology Corps sustainability plan, and identification of other replication opportunities, particularly in Southern California (to help build a strong north-south alliance for legislative and funding advocacy).

The cost of services will not exceed $124,800; the term end date is September 30, 2016.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Prior Board Actions: 09/10/13: Approved first amended agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps. Cost $87,400; term end 9/30/2014. 02/28/12: Approved agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps. Cost $124,800; term end 9/30/2013. 11/02/10: Approved agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment. Cost $80,000; term end 9/30/2011. 06/07/10: Approved fourth amended agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment Program. Cost $25,000; term end 12/31/2010. 12/15/09: Approved third amended agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment Program. Cost $85,000; term end 12/31/2009. 10/28/09: Approved second amended agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment Program. Cost $20,000; term end 12/31/2009. 06/16/09: Approved first amended agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment Program. Cost $166,300; term end 12/31/2009. 05/01/09: Approved agreement between Water Agency and New Ways to Work for Consulting Services for Sonoma County Youth Employment Program. Cost $25,000; term end 9/30/2009. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship The project supports Goal 2 as the Youth Ecology Corps provides paychecks and job training to young people, while teaching them about watershed management, parks maintenance, and environmental stewardship

Water Agency Flood Control Goals and Strategies, Goal 1: Maintain, operate, and modify flood protection facilities to meet current and future public needs. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 62,400 Water Agency Gen Fund $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ 62,400 $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 62,400 Total Sources $ 62,400

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Budgeted amount of $62,400 is available from FY 2014/2015 appropriations for the Flood Control Zones 1A, 2A, 3A, and Water Transmission funds. FY 2015/2016 appropriations will be budgeted in that fiscal year.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Agreement (4 copies)

nw\\S:\Agenda\agrees\01-27-2015 WA Sonoma County Youth Ecology CF/15-0-21 New Ways to Work (Agree for Consulting Services Related to Corps Program_summ.docm Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps Program) TW 14/15-041 (ID 5148)

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 6 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

HISTORY OF ITEM/BACKGROUND: The 2008 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion concluded that the existing operation of the Russian River Project (the combined operation of Warm Springs Dam and Coyote Valley Dam for water supply and flood control purposes) is likely to jeopardize the survival and recovery of the Endangered Species Act-listed Steelhead trout and Coho salmon and adversely modify their critical habitats. The Biological Opinion requires the Water Agency and the Corps to implement enhancements of up to six miles of habitat in Dry Creek to increase the survival of juvenile Steelhead trout and Coho salmon. The Biological Opinion contains deadlines for completion of the habitat enhancement (first mile by 2014, miles two and three by 2018, and miles four through six by 2021).

The Water Agency and the Corps have completed the first mile of habitat work, through completion of the Water Agency’s Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Demonstration Project (completed in 2014) and the Corps’ Dry Creek Reach 15 Habitat Enhancement Project (constructed in 2013). The Water Agency is engaged in property acquisition activities, and has entered into agreements for design of the mile two and three improvements with two consultants (InterFluve for mile 2 work, and ESA/PWA for mile 3 work).

Revision No. 20140617-1 Through the joint efforts of the Water Agency and the Corps, there is a strong potential for the Corps to fund a portion of the mile 2-3 of habitat work in Dry Creek under the authority of section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662), as amended, and to fund a portion of the mile 4-6 of habitat work in Dry Creek under the authority of a Corps’ Ecosystem Restoration Project General Investigation. On June 10, 2014, the Water Agency’s Board of Directors authorized the General Manager of the Water Agency to enter into a feasibility cost share agreement with the Corps for funding miles 2-3 of habitat work in Dry Creek, and the agreement was executed on October 10, 2014. To continue and build on this ongoing Water Agency-Corps cooperation, the Water Agency has negotiated a second feasibility cost share agreement with the Corps for miles 4-6 of habitat work in Dry Creek. The Water Agency would be the local sponsor, and would cost share with the Corps on a 50/50 basis during the feasibility phase. The feasibility phase consists of evaluating a wide range of potential habitat enhancement sites and determining which sites are feasible to move on to more detailed design. During this phase, the Water Agency would pay for feasibility work and the Corps would pay for its own feasibility study process. Estimated costs are $1.5 million for each agency.

Partnering with the Corps for funding habitat work in Dry Creek could result in millions of dollars in cost savings to the Water Agency, if a portion of the design and construction costs for miles 4-6 of habitat work in Dry Creek is paid for by the Corps. Without cost-sharing with the Corps, the Water Agency could still be required under the Biological Opinion to pay the full amount of the Dry Creek habitat enhancement work (currently estimated to be $7-$9 million dollars per mile). If the feasibility study results in a determination that the Corps will partner on these projects, up to 65% of the cost may be paid by the Corps. The Water Agency intends to provide its portion of the cost-share for the feasibility study by using funds already earmarked for mile 4-6 design, environmental compliance, right-of-way, and project management costs. Prior Board Actions: 6/10/14: Authorize the General Manager of Water Agency to sign Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with Corps under Continuing Authority Program, Section 1135 Water Resources Development Act (for Miles 2-3 of Dry Creek Habitat Work funding). Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship Federal funding towards the project will help accomplish habitat enhancement of Dry Creek to provide near ideal summer rearing conditions for Coho and Steelhead while maintaining operational steady state discharge for water supply purposes.

Water Agency Organizational Goals and Strategies, Goal 2: Responsibly manage Water Agency finances Protect the Water Agency’s existing water rights and our clean, high quality water supply, and improve system resiliency by continuing to develop alternative supplies.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ Water Agency Gen Fund $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 0 Total Sources $ 0 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): The Agency’s cost share under this arrangement will be $1.5 million and will be met through expenditures to pay for engineering, design, and project management (including Water Agency staff project management time). These costs will be included in FY 15-16, FY 16-17, and FY 17-18 requested budgets. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Agreement (1 Copy)

nw\\S:\Agenda\agrees\01-27-2015 WA Russian River Biological Opinion CF/45-6.1-21 US Army Corps of Engineers (Dry Creek Habitat General Cost Share Agree_summ.docm Investigation Feasibility Cost Share Agree) TW No (ID5197)

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 7 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Sara Press – 565-7368 District 5 Title: Howlett Forest Conservation Easement C.E.Q.A. Recommended Actions: Determine that the Howlett Forest conservation easement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and direct the General Manager of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (District) to file a Notice of Exemption in compliance with C.E.Q.A. Executive Summary: The District is working to protect the forests of northern Sonoma County. The Howlett Forest, located north of the community of Annapolis, contains some of the most significant unprotected old growth redwood stands in the county and is home to threatened and endangered wildlife. As such, District staff is working with the property representative on a conservation easement transaction that will protect the old growth stands while allowing for sustainable forestry on other portions of the property.

On September 23, 2014 the Board of Directors authorized the District to submit an application to the California Habitat Conservation Fund (H.C.F.) Program for a $300,000 grant to assist in the acquisition of the Howlett Forest conservation easement. The intent of the H.C.F. Program is to protect, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat and fisheries that are vital to maintaining California’s quality of life.

The H.C.F. Program requires that the project applicant make a formal C.E.Q.A. determination before the State makes its final funding decision. Therefore, the District is varying from its normal procedure by requesting a formal C.E.Q.A. determination from the Board of Directors now, rather than when the easement is brought to the Board for approval. In order to make this determination, we are requesting that the Board: (i) concur with staff’s determination that the Howlett Forest conservation easement is exempt from C.E.Q.A. for the reasons discussed below and set forth in the attached Notice of Exemption; (ii) direct the District General Manager to file the Notice of Exemption in compliance with C.E.Q.A.; and (iii) submit both the Notice of Exemption and a completed C.E.Q.A. Compliance Certification form with the State in conjunction with the District’s H.C.F. grant application. Upon completing the conservation easement negotiation and appraisal process, the District will bring the

Revision No. 20140617-1 proposed conservation easement back to the Board for approval.

The District's acquisition of a conservation easement over the property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) on several grounds. The purpose of the project is to preserve fish and wildlife habitat (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15313(a)). In addition, the project is exempt because the purpose of the project is to maintain the open space character of the property (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15317); and to preserve and restore the natural conditions, including plant and animal habitats (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15325 (a) and (c)).

Prior Board Actions: On September 23, 2014, the Board authorized submission of a grant application to the California Habitat Conservation Fund Program for the Howlett Forest project. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship The project will protect, maintain and manage open space land that protects watersheds, promotes biodiversity and contributes to the area’s economic vitality. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): No direct fiscal impact. The Howlett Forest project is budgeted and will be brought to the Board in the future for approval.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: 1. Howlett Forest Location Map 2. Notice of Exemption Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 Gualala River Forest MENDOCINO COUNTY Flat Ridge Ranch

Howlett Forest

Buckeye Forest

Gualala Regional Buckeye Park Forest

Buckeye Reserve Del Mar Landing Ecological Soda Springs S Forest Buckeye Reserve o u Forest th HWY 1 F o r k G u Little a la Creek 1 la Oga Little |ÿ R Creek iv e Annapolis Milling r Annapolis Company ANNA PO ualala River L k G IS or R F D ld ie tf PACIFIC OCEAN a e h Sea Ranch W

Camp Gualala

Howlett Forest Private Conservation Organization Fee Title ´ Conservation Easement Map Date: 9/5/2014 Location Map Sources: Protected Lands (CAPAD/CCED); Streams (SCWA); 0 1 2 Roads, Communities (County GIS); Shaded Relief (ESRI) Public Fee Title This map is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended Miles to be a definitive property description.

C.Kendall S:\GISProjects\Howlett\PDFs\howlett_location_map.pdf SO N O M A C O U N T Y

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION N O T I C E O F E X E M P T I O N & OPEN SPACE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

D I S T R I C T

PROJECT TITLE: Howlett Forest Conservation Easement

PROJECT LOCATION: 23290 Soda Springs Rd., Annapolis, 95412 Sonoma County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of a conservation easement over approximately 1,395 acres by the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District to preserve the natural resource and open space values of the property.

PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 100, Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4850

PUBLIC AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District

PUBLIC AGENCY CONTACT: Sara Press, Associate Open Space Planner, (707) 565-7360

EXEMPT STATUS: Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268) Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)) Categorical Exemption pursuant to California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15313, preservation of fish and wildlife habitat; and Section 15317, open space contracts or easements, and Section 15325(a) and (c), preservation of existing natural conditions and preservation of continued agricultural use respectively Statutory Exemption

REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT:

The acquisition of a conservation easement over the Howlett Forest property is exempt pursuant to Section 15313 (a) Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve fish and wildlife habitat. The conservation easement will restrict uses on the property to natural resource protection, habitat restoration and enhancement, sustainable commercial forestry, and ancillary uses. The conservation easement will establish minimum protective forest management standards, prevent conversion of forestland, and restrict the size and location of structures and improvements.

Additionally, the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15317, Open Space Contracts or Easements, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the purpose of the acquisition is to maintain the open space character of the area. The conservation easement will restrict uses on the property, and will

restrict the size and location of structures and improvements so as to maintain the open space character of the property.

Further, the project is also exempt pursuant to Section 15325(a) and (c) Transfers of Ownership of Interest in Land to Preserve Existing Natural Conditions, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the existing natural conditions, including plant and animal habitats, and to allow for restoration of natural conditions, including plant and animal habitats, respectively.

THIS NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IS BEING FILED BY THE SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT.

______William J. Keene, General Manager Date SCAPOSD

Agenda Item Number: 8 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Sonoma Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Lisa Correia, x. 2371 All Title: MOU Between Marin and Sonoma Counties for technical assistance relating to VESCO projects Recommended Actions: Authorize the Agricultural Commissioner to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Marin County for VESCO technical assistance services, to be reimbursed on an at cost basis, and find that the MOU will not adversely impact private sector individuals and companies.

Executive Summary: In 2011 Marin County adopted an ordinance to enforce erosion and sediment control measures on vineyard developments, which is administered by their Department of Agriculture. The Marin County vineyard erosion and sediment control ordinance (VESCO) is modeled after the original Sonoma County VESCO ordinance adopted in 1999. While the specific requirements for vineyard development differ, the technical skills needed to review these projects is the same as for the Sonoma County program. The volume of vineyard development in Marin County is quite low, currently they receive only one application per year or less. Given the significant technical skills needed to review sediment and erosion control measures, it was not efficient for Marin County to hire their own technical personnel to review these plans.

As a result, the Marin County Department of Agriculture approached the Sonoma County Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures and requested to enter into an agreement that would allow us to provide technical assistance on plan review, inspections, and investigations on complaints or non- compliances. The cost of all work conducted by Sonoma County staff or our contractors under this MOU will be recovered on an at-cost basis by Marin County, and the expected volume of work can be accommodated within existing resources. Marin County will retain all enforcement and administrative authority associated with their Ordinance. The MOU does not have a termination date. Either party can choose to terminate the MOU for any reason by providing 60 days notice.

This MOU represents an excellent opportunity for our department to leverage our strengths and collaborate with our partners to the south. The MOU is authorized by Government Code section 25332,

Revision No. 20140617-1 provided that the Board finds that “the provision of the special service described in the proposed contract will not adversely impact the provision of similar services by private sector companies or individuals within the county.” The contract is similar to a “mutual aid” contract. Private sector companies and inidividuals do not provide similar services, and will not be adversely impacted. Accordingly, the proposed action incorporates the finding required by Government Code section 25332. Prior Board Actions: None Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship

Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): No net fiscal impact. Any costs incurred will be offset by revenues. The total amount of this MOU is anticipated to be $10,000 per year or less.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None Attachments:

Revision No. 20140617-1 Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Draft MOU between Marin and Sonoma Counties for Technical Assistance relating to vineyard erosion and sediment control projects.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 9 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor David Rabbitt, 565-2241 Second Title: Disbursement of FY 14-15 Second District Advertising Funds. Recommended Actions: Approve Advertising Program grant awards and authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract with the following entities for advertising and promotions activities for FY 14/15: Cotati Accordion Festival, Inc., $1,000 and American Legion Post 28 for Veterans Day Parade, $1,056.

Executive Summary: Category E – Local Events and Organizations of the Advertising and Promotions Program Policy provides grant allocations to each Supervisor, to be distributed at the Supervisor’s discretion. The Second District has reviewed applications and wishes to recommend the following FY 14/15 advertising grant award:

1.) Cotati Accordion Festival, Inc., for advertising and promotion of the Cotati Accordion Festival; grant award of $1,000. 2.) American Legion Post 28 for advertising and promotion of the Veterans Day Parade; grant award of $1,056.

Funds will be distributed upon approval of these awards by Board and execution of Advertising grant agreement contract with the entity. The contracts will be executed by the County Administrator. The contracts will require the County logo on promotional materials produced using the grant award and will require submission to the District Director and County Administrator’s Office of advertising and promotional activity receipts up to the total amount of the grant award. Prior Board Actions: 9/9/14, 9/16/14 - Awarded FY 14/15 Category E grants. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship Grant funds allow non-profit partners to advertise and grow local events and encourage tourism thereby promoting economic development and growth.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $2,056 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $2,056 $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ $2,056 Total Sources $ $2,056 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Funds are included in the FY 14/15 budget.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: FY 14/15 Grant Award Agreement Template Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None.

Revision No. 20140617-1

A G R E E M E N T

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of June__, _2014 , by and between the COUNTY OF SONOMA, (hereinafter COUNTY) and the ______, (hereinafter ADVERTISER).

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, ADVERTISER has represented that it is aware of and understands the provisions and requirements of Government Code Section 26100 and COUNTY’S “Advertising and Promotions Program Policy” for the expenditure of funds appropriated under Section 26100, and that any expenditure made by ADVERTISER will be in compliance with Section 26100, the Advertising and Promotions Policy, and this Agreement, and

WHEREAS, COUNTY’S Board of Supervisors has relied on those representations in authorizing the execution of this Agreement, and

WHEREAS, ADVERTISER has applied for and received funding under Category E – Local Events and Organizations category of the Advertising and Promotions Program Policy, and

WHEREAS, ADVERTISER is ready, willing and able to perform the services herein provided to be performed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:

1. During the fiscal year July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, COUNTY shall pay to ADVERTISER the total sum of $XXX.00 (hereinafter "Advertising Funds"), payable upon execution of this contract.

2. ADVERTISER must submit to the COUNTY receipts of activities performed utilizing the Advertising Funds. Activities must take place between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Receipts must be remitted to the COUNTY by July 31, 2015. If receipts are not submitted by July 31, 2015, repayment will be required of grant dollars not supported by advertising expense receipts by August 15, 2015. Failure to submit required receipts may jeopardize ability to receive future grant awards.

3. In consideration whereof, ADVERTISER promises and agrees to render the following services to COUNTY during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015:

As set forth in the attached, Exhibit A (application for funding). In the case of more than one event, Advertiser will not transfer funds between events without prior approval from the county’s program coordinator.

Additionally, any Advertising conducted utilizing funds provided under this agreement must identify the “County of Sonoma – Board of Supervisors” as a sponsor. ADVERTISER may also include the Sonoma County seal logo on materials, although the seal may not replace the language noted in this section.

4. ADVERTISER agrees to keep complete books and records, and to make available and submit to audit by COUNTY all of ADVERTISER’S books, records, and financial statements upon COUNTY’S request and without prior notice.

5. ADVERTISER warrants to COUNTY that any Advertising funds paid to ADVERTISER by COUNTY pursuant to this agreement shall be expended for only those purposes authorized by Section 26100 of the Government Code of the State of California and the COUNTY’s Advertising and Promotions Policy.

6. Travel expenses, such as transportation and lodging, and/or meal costs, are not allowable advertising and promotions expenses. Advertising Funds may not be used to purchase or lease fixed assets.

7. ADVERTISER agrees to submit copies of all published materials to the County Administrator’s Office.

8. Indemnification:

a. ADVERTISER agrees to accept all responsibility for loss or damage to any person or entity, including COUNTY, and to indemnify, hold harmless, and release COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any actions, claims, damages, liabilities, disabilities, or expenses, that may be asserted by any person or entity, including Advertiser, that arise out of, pertain to, or related to Advertiser’s or its agents’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, or invitees’ performance or obligations under this Agreement. Consultant’s obligations under this Section apply whether or not there is concurrent negligence on County’s part, but to the extent required by law, excluding liability due to County’s conduct. County shall have the right to select its legal counsel at Consultant’s expense, subject to Consultant’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for Consultant or its agents under workers' compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or other employee benefit acts.

b. ADVERTISER shall be liable to COUNTY for any loss or damage to COUNTY property arising from or in connection with ADVERTISER's performance hereunder.

9. Non-Discrimination: ADVERTISER shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations in regard to non-discrimination in employment because of race, ancestry, color, sex, age, national origin, religion, marital status, medical condition, or handicap, including the provisions of Article II of Chapter 19 of the Sonoma County Code, prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, and services because of AIDS or HIV infection.

10. Assignment/Delegation: ADVERTISER shall not assign, sublet, transfer or delegate any interest in or duty under this agreement without written consent of COUNTY, and no assignment shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until so consented.

11. Merger: This writing is intended both as the final expression of the agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement, pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1856. No modification of this agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by both parties.

12. Termination: At any time, with or without cause, COUNTY shall have the right in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to ADVERTISER. In the event of such termination, COUNTY shall pay ADVERTISER for services rendered satisfactorily and in good faith to such date in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in the Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered hereunder by ADVERTISER bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total fee; provided, however, that there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, if any, sustained by COUNTY by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by ADVERTISER.

13. Repayment: If ADVERTISER fails to comply with the rules and requirements of the Advertising and Promotions Program Policy or the specific Category requirements under which the ADVERTISER received funds, as specified, then ADVERTISER shall, within ten days of receipt of notice of such failure by COUNTY, return all grant funds provided by COUNTY under this agreement; provided, however, that COUNTY may, in its sole discretion, allow ADVERTISER to retain some or all grant funds if COUNTY determines that the failure was inadvertent or immaterial, or that ADVERTISER has taken action to ensure that the failure will not reoccur.

14. Conflict of Interest: ADVERTISER covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct, or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services hereunder. ADVERTISER further covenants that in the performance of this contract no person having any such interest shall be employed.

15. Attorneys’ Fees: In the event either party brings an action or proceeding for damages arising out of the other’s performance under this Agreement or to establish the right or remedy of either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as a part of such action or proceeding.

16. Statutory Compliance: ADVERTISER agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, statutes and policies applicable to the services provided under this Agreement as they exist now and as they are changed, amended or modified during the term of this Agreement.

17. AIDS Discrimination: ADVERTISER agrees to comply with the provisions of Chapter 19, Article II, of the Sonoma County Code prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, and services because of AIDS or HIV infection during the term of this Agreement and any extensions of the term.

18. No Third Party Beneficiaries: Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create and the parties do not intend to create any rights in third parties.

19. Extra or Changed Work: Extra or changed work or other changes to the Agreement may be authorized only by written amendment to this Agreement, signed by both parties. ADVERTISER expressly recognizes that, pursuant to Sonoma County Code Section 1-11, COUNTY personnel are without authorization to order extra or changed work or waive Agreement requirements. Failure of ADVERTISER to secure such written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the Agreement price or Agreement time due to such unauthorized work and thereafter ADVERTISER shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for the performance of such work. ADVERTISER further expressly waives any and all right or remedy by way of restitution and quantum meruit for any and all extra work performed without such express and prior written authorization of the COUNTY.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written.

COUNTY OF SONOMA

DATE: ______By ______County Administrator, authorized by the Chair, Board of Supervisors

DATE: ______By ______(Enter name of Grantee)

Agenda Item Number: 10 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Commissioners Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): County Administrator’s Office Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Veronica Ferguson, (707) 565-2431 All Title: Amendment to Personal Services Agreement – Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission Recommended Actions: Authorize the Chair to execute an Amendment to the Personal Services Agreement with Kathleen Kane as the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, commencing on January 27, 2015 through January 14, 2018. Executive Summary: Attached for your Board’s approval is an Amendment to the Personal Services Agreement with Kathleen Kane in her capacity as the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission. Based on Ms. Kane’s excellent performance and long term tenure, the Amendment incorporates a 2.5% salary increase above the incumbent’s current “I” step level.

Prior Board Actions: January 15, 2013 Approved Amendment to Personal Services Agreement with Kathleen Kane, Executive Director of the Community Development Commission. Agreements have been previously entered into in 2004 and 2008.

Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement This position provides the civic services and support required to manage various Community Development Commission programs and services.

Revision No. 20121026-1 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 169,078 $ 169,078 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Ongoing annualizing salary associated with this position is 169,078 and is incorporated in the FY 14-15 budget.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: Amendment to Agreement for Personal Services. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20121026-1 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SONOMA COUNTYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

This Amendment to the Agreement for Personal Services (“AGREEMENT”) is made this 27th day of January, 2015 by and between the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (hereinafter “COMMISSION”) and Kathleen H. Kane (hereinafter “EMPLOYEE”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, on or about January 15th, 2013, the COMMISSION and EMPLOYEE entered into its most recent Personal Services Agreement for the position of Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission; and,

WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for a term of employment for a period of five (5) years, commencing on January 15, 2013, and ending on January 14, 2018; and,

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement, as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED by and between the parties as follows:

Section 3(a) of the Agreement is modified as follows:

3. Compensation.

(a) Commencing on January 27th, 2015, EMPLOYEE’s salary shall be set at 2.5% above that of the “I” step for the position of Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, as is provided for in the Sonoma County Salary Resolution 95-0926, and as may be amended from time to time during the term of this Agreement.

ATTEST: SONOMA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

______By______Clerk of the Board Chair, Board of Directors

EMPLOYEE

______Kathleen H. Kane Agenda Item Number: 11 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

State law requires that each local agency adopt a conflict of interest code indentifying (1) those positions in which officers or employees make decisions affecting government spending (“designated employees”), and (2) the types of personal interests which could be affected by those decisions (“disclosure categories”). County departments each adopted their own codes when this law first went into effect in 1976. In 1991, these codes were consolidated into one code for the County of Sonoma.

State law requires that at the close of each even numbered year, each agency review its code and determine whether any changes should be made. In the fall of 2014, the Clerk of the Board contacted all Department Heads and requested that they review the list of designated employees that related to their department. Department Heads have suggested certain changes to reflect positions added, title and responsibility changes, and positions deleted. County Counsel had reviewed and approved these changes.

Specific revisions to each department’s list of designated employees are as follows:

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office. Deleted title of position that no longer exists: Department Information Systems Specialist II.

Human Services. Deleted titles of positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions, revise the titles of existing positions (Program Planning & Evaluation Analyst) and include new positions that must be designated (Assistant Director).

Revision No. 20121026-1 Health Services. Added the First 5 Commissioners to the Department of Health Services’ designated employee list.

County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor/Registrar of Voters. Included a new position that must be designated (Departmental Analyst) and included existing positions that make or participate in making governmental decisions (Assessment Process Manager and Program Development Manager).

Fire and Emergency Services Department. Modified list of designated employees to include title of a new position: UASI Project Director.

General Services. Deleted title of positions that no longer exist (County Architect and Assistant Facility Manager) and included existing positions that make or participate in making governmental decisions (Maintenance Program Manager and Capital Projects Manager).

Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector. Modified list of designated employees to include title of a new position: Investment & Debt Officer.

Permit and Resource Management Department. Modified the list of designated employees to include title of new position and revised title of an existing position: Department Information Systems Manager and Licensed Land Surveyor.

Prior Board Actions: 7-16-1991, Resolution No. 91-1226, Board adopted Conflict of Interest Code for the County of Sonoma. Since then, the Board has updated the list of designated positions every two years as required by state law. Strategic Plan Alignment

Revision No. 20121026-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): The action is administrative in nature; no budgetary impacts are associated with this item.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: Resolution; Revised pages of appendix “A” and “B” to Conflict of Interest Code Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Department material requesting changes to Code; appendixes A & B.

Revision No. 20121026-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number: 4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board Of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for the County of Sonoma

Whereas, in Resolution No. 91-1227, as last amended by Resolution No. 13-0073, this Board adopted a Conflict of Interest Code for the County of Sonoma; and Whereas, state law requires that each local agency periodically review and revise its code; and Whereas, each County Department was requested to review employee designations and disclosure categories pertinent to the Department, and inform the Clerk of the Board and County Counsel of any necessary revisions; and Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed all proposed changes and believes the Code amendments comply with state law; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Appendix “B” to the Conflict of Interest Code for the County of Sonoma is hereby amended, and is approved as attached hereto. Be It Further Resolved that such changes shall become effective immediately and applicable to statements of economic interest due April 1, 2015; and that the Clerk of the Board is directed to send copies of this resolution and revised Appendix B to all department heads, the County Administrator, the County Counsel, and to place a copy of the revised Appendix on file in the Office of the Board of Supervisors with the Conflict of Interest Code for the County of Sonoma.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered. APPENDIX A DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FILE SCHEDULES 1. All sources of income*, gifts, investments* and business positions in business entities, and all interests in real property**. (Persons designated to report in this ALL SCHEDULES category shall complete all schedules.) 2. Investments* and business positions in business entities, gifts* and income* from sources which provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of A1 A2 C E the type provided by or utilized by the county. 3. Investments* and business positions in business entities, gifts and income from sources, which provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the A1 A2 C E type utilized by or provided by the employee's department or division. 4. Sources of gifts and income* from, and investments* and business positions in, business entities which are subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of A1 A2 C E the employee's department. 5. Sources of gifts and income* from, and investments* and business positions in, business entities, which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition ALL SCHEDULES or sale of real property**; and all interests in real property**. 6. All sources of gifts and income* from providing mental health or counseling services; and investments* and business positions in business entities which A1 A2 C E provide mental health or counseling services. 7. Investments* and business positions in business entities and gifts and income* from sources which provide medical services, including but not limited to privately owned hospitals, medical clinics, laboratories, pharmacies and ambulance companies; and

Investments* and business positions in business entities and gifts and income* A1 A2 C E from sources which manufacture, sell or distribute medical equipment or services of the type leased or loaned by the county to ambulance services, medical services such as police, sheriff and fire rescue units, trauma centers and emergency rooms;

Investments* and business positions in business entities and gifts and income* from sources of the type providing training for persons engaged in medical service programs. 8. Gifts and Income* from individuals who are county employees, or who appear C E before the Civil Service Commission as an employee's representative. 9. Investments* and business positions in business entities and gifts and income* from sources which provide transportation services subject to the review or approval A1 A2 B C of the Transportation and Public Works Department and all interests in real property**. A1 A2 C D E 9 (a) Investments, positions in business entities, and gifts and income from wineries, hotels, motels, restaurants, providers of entertainment, and other business entities of the type whose goods or services are used or purchased by tourists or to promote tourism; (b) any investments in, income and gifts from, or business positions in any entity that supplies goods or services to the Sonoma County Tourism Program; and (c) gifts of over $50 from anyone with an interest in or who receives income from any industry listed in (a) or (b) above. 10(a) Investments, business positions in business entities, and income from sources which manufacture, sell, or distribute goods or services to the entertainment A1 A2 C D E industry, including the movie industry, television industry, or advertisement industry; (b) any investments in, income from, or business positions in any entity which produces movies, television shows, or advertisements; (c ) any investments in, income from, or business positions in any entity that supplies goods or services to the Sonoma County Film Office; and (d) gifts of over $50 from anyone with an interest in or who receives income from any industry listed in (a), (b), or (c ) above. * Only investments in and sources of income and gifts from business entities, and sources of income, which do business in Sonoma County, plan to do business in Sonoma County, or have done business in Sonoma County within the past two years should be reported. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing business within Sonoma County if it owns real property within the County.

** Interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of Sonoma County or within two miles of any land owned or used by Sonoma County, or investments in business entities, which buy and sell real property in Sonoma County.

CATEGORY SCHEDULES

Business Positions A2, C

Commission Income A2, C

Gifts received by family members D (Disclosure may not be required)

Gifts received from family members D (Disclosure not required, see Schedule D)

Income to my business A2

Individual Retirement Account A1, B

Investments A1, A2

Loans made to others C (Disclosure not required, but report repayments on Schedule C)

Loans received B, C

Loans to my business A2

Owning a business or partnership A1, A2

Real estate holdings B (A2 if held by business entity/trust)

Rental income B, C

Rental property B (A2 if held by a business entity/trust)

Sale of home/automobile/boat C

Sole proprietorship A2

Spouse or registered domestic partner’s income A2, C

Stock holdings A1, A2

Tickets and passes D

Travel reimbursements or payments E

Trusts A2

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Sheriff’s Office/Coroner

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Sheriff/Coroner 1 Administrative Services Officer 3 Assistant Sheriff 3 Captain 3 Communications Dispatch Manager 3 Department Accounting Manager 3 Department Administrative Services Director 3 Department Analyst 3 Lieutenant 3 Department Information Systems Specialist II 3 Department Information Systems Manager 3 Department Program Manager 3 Consultants **

** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

The department head may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “Designated Position” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the Consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The department head’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Human Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category: Director of Human Services 1 Accountant III 3, 6 Administrative Services Officer I 3, 6 Administrative Services Officer II 3, 6 *Assistant Director 1 Chef 1 Chief Public Administrator/Guardian/Conservator 3 Children’s Services Section Manager 3, 6 Department Administrative Services Director 1 Department Analyst 3, 6 Department Information Systems Manager 3 Human Services Division Director 1 Human Services Section Manager 3, 6 Program Development Manager 3, 6 ***Program Planning & Evaluation Analyst 3, 6 Public Health Nurse II 6, 7 Senior Department Information Systems Manager 3 Senior Storekeeper 3 Social Service Supervisor I/II 6 Social Service Worker IV 6 Supervising Accountant 3, 6 Supervising Employment & Training Counselor 6 Valley of the Moon Children’s Home Manager 3, 6 Veterans Claims Worker I/II/III 6, 7 Veterans Service Officer 6, 7 Consultants **

* New position added to department allocation list ** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations: The department head may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “Designated Position” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the Consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The department head’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. *** Existing position, job class name change Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Health Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category: Acute Forensics Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Administrative Services Officer II 3, 7 Adult, Youth and Family Services Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Substance Use Disorder and Recovery Services Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Assistant Director of Health Services 1 Business Development Manager 3, 7 Community Mental Health Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Department Administrative Services Director 1 Department Information Systems Manager 3 Deputy Public Health Officer 3, 6, 7 Director of Animal Care and Control 3 Director of Health Services 1 Director of Health Policy, Planning & Evaluation 1 EMS Coordinator 4, 7 EMS Specialist 4, 7 Environmental Health Program Manager 4 Environmental Health & Safety Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Family Health Section Manager 3, 6, 7 First 5 Sonoma Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Healthy Communities Section Manager 3, 6, 7 Health Services Division Director, Behavioral Health 3, 6, 7 Health Services Division Director, Public Health 3, 6, 7 Mental Health Medical Director 1 Public Health Laboratory Director 3, 4, 7 Health Officer 1 Regional EMS Manager 3, 4, 7 Sonoma County First Five Commissioners 1 Consultants **

** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations: The department head may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “Designated Position” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the Consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The department head’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor/Registrar of Voters

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor/Registrar of Voters 1 Department Accounting Manager 1 Administrative Services Officer 1 Department Analyst 1 Chief Deputy County Clerk 3 Chief Deputy Recorder 3, 5 Chief Deputy Assessor 3, 5 Department Information Systems Specialist 5 Chief of Assessment Standards 5 Appraiser I/II/III/IV 5 Assessment Process Manager 5 Auditor/Appraiser I/II 5 Chief Appraiser 5 Supervising Auditor-Appraiser 5 Chief Deputy Registrar of Voters 1 Program Development Manager 1 Consultants ** Valuation Consultants **

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Fire and Emergency Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

County Fire Chief, Department Director 1 Emergency Manager 2 Assistant Fire Chief – Fire Marshal 2 Assistant Fire Chief – Training and Operations 2 Administrative Services Officer I 2 Fire Services Officer 3 Senior Fire Inspector, Training 3 UASI Project Director 3 UASI Program Manager 3 Consultants **

** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 General Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Director 1 Deputy Director – General Services 1 Administrative Services Officer I 1 Administrative Services Officer II 1 County Architect 2 Associate Architect 2 Capital Projects Manager 2 Purchasing Agent 1 Assistant Purchasing Agent 2 Buyer 2 Fleet Manager 2 Assistant Fleet Manager 2 Real Estate Manager 2, 5 Maintenance Program Manager 2 Assistant Facility Manager 2 Assistant Building Superintendent 2 Department Analyst 2 Sr. Project Specialist 2, 5 Major Project Architect 2, 5 Energy and Sustainability Manager 2 Assistant Real Estate Manager 2, 5 Business Development Manager 2 Department Program Manager 2 Consultants **

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector 1 (Statutory Filer)* Assistant Auditor-Controller 2 Assistant Treasurer-Tax Collector 1 (Statutory Filer)** Accounting Manager 3 Audit Manager 3 Investment & Debt Officer 1 (Statutory Filer)** Payroll Manager 3 Tax Manager 3 Treasury Manager 1 (Statutory Filer)** Consultants ***

* Original Form 700 filed with County Clerk and forwarded to FPPC per Government Code §87500(e)

** Form 700 filed with the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office

*** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2014 Permit and Resource Management Department

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category: Director 1 Accountant III 3 Administrative Aide 3 Administrative Services Officer I/II 1 Building Division Manager 1 Building Inspector I/II/III 4, 5 Customer Service Supervisor 4, 5 Department Analyst 3 Department Information Systems Manager 1 Deputy Director – Engineering & Construction 1 Deputy Director – Planning 1 Engineering Aide 4, 5 Engineering Division Manager 1 Engineering Technician I/II/III/Trainee & IV 4, 5 Environmental Health Specialist I/II/III/Trainee 4, 5 Environmental Specialist 4, 5 Licensed Land Surveyor (Land Surveyor) 4, 5 Permit Technician I/II 4, 5 PRMD Division Manager 1 Senior/Assistant/Junior Engineer/Engineer 4, 5 Senior/I/II/Trainee Building Plans Examiner 4, 5 Senior Environmental Specialist 4, 5 Supervising Building Inspector 4, 5 Supervisor/Sr./I/II Code Enforcement Inspector 4, 5 Supervisor I/II/III and Technician Planner 4, 5 Well & Septic Supervisor 4, 5 Consultants/Contractors **

** Consultants/Contractors shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations: The department head may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “Designated Position” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the Consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The department head’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

Clean Copy of Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Sheriff’s Office/Coroner

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Sheriff/Coroner 1 Administrative Services Officer 3 Assistant Sheriff 3 Captain 3 Communications Dispatch Manager 3 Department Accounting Manager 3 Department Administrative Services Director 3 Department Analyst 3 Lieutenant 3 Department Information Systems Manager 3 Department Program Manager 3 Consultants **

** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Human Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category: Director of Human Services 1 Accountant III 3, 6 Administrative Services Officer I 3, 6 Administrative Services Officer II 3, 6 *Assistant Director 1 Chief Public Administrator/Guardian/Conservator 3 Department Administrative Services Director 1 Department Analyst 3, 6 Department Information Systems Manager 3 Human Services Division Director 1 Human Services Section Manager 3, 6 Program Development Manager 3, 6 ***Program Planning & Evaluation Analyst 3, 6 Senior Department Information Systems Manager 3 Supervising Accountant 3, 6 Valley of the Moon Children’s Home Manager 3, 6 Veterans Service Officer 6, 7 Consultants **

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Health Services

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor/Registrar of Voters

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 Fire and Emergency Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2015 General Services

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

Director 1 Deputy Director – General Services 1 Administrative Services Officer I 1 Administrative Services Officer II 1 Associate Architect 2 Capital Projects Manager 2 Purchasing Agent 1 Assistant Purchasing Agent 2 Buyer 2 Fleet Manager 2 Assistant Fleet Manager 2 Real Estate Manager 2, 5 Maintenance Program Manager 2 Assistant Building Superintendent 2 Department Analyst 2 Sr. Project Specialist 2, 5 Major Project Architect 2, 5 Energy and Sustainability Manager 2 Assistant Real Estate Manager 2, 5 Business Development Manager 2 Department Program Manager 2 Consultants **

Designated Positions: Disclosure Category:

* Original Form 700 filed with County Clerk and forwarded to FPPC per Government Code §87500(e)

** Form 700 filed with the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office

*** Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations:

Appendix B – Revised January 27, 2014 Permit and Resource Management Department

Agenda Item Number: 12 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Commissioners and Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): County Counsel’s Office Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Linda Schiltgen, Deputy County Counsel All (707) 565-2421 Title: Conflict of Interest Code Amendments Recommended Actions: Acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the Community Development Commission’s Conflict of Interest Code.

Acting as the Board of Supervisors in its role as the code reviewing body, adopt resolutions approving conflict of interest code amendments for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District, Sonoma Charter School, Russian River Fire Protection District, Geyserville Fire Protection District, Petaluma Health Care District, Palm Drive Health Care District, Sonoma County Fair & Exposition, Inc., Sonoma County Water Agency and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Mark West Union School District, Sonoma County Fish & Wildlife Commission, Valley of the Moon Water District, Rains Creek Water District, River Montessori Charter School, Rincon Valley Union School District, Old Adobe Union School District, Camp Meeker Recreation & Park District, Town of Windsor Water District, Kenwood School District, Stony Point Academy, Wright Elementary School District and Graton Fire Protection District

Executive Summary: This item requests two actions. The first recommended action is by the Community Development Commission to adopt its own updated conflict of interest code. The second recommended action is by the Board of Supervisors acting as the code reviewing body to approve all of the non-County entities’ updated conflict of interest codes.

Revision No. 20121026-1 Community Development Commission

State law requires that each local agency adopt a conflict of interest code identifying 1) those positions in which officers or employees make decision affecting government spending (“designated employee”), and 2) the types of personal interests which could be affected by those decisions (“disclosure categories”). The Community Development Commission (CDC) adopted a Conflict of Interest Code complying with these requirements, but due to recent adjustments to its staff positions as a result of the dissolution of redevelopment programs, the CDC has revised its conflict of interest code to reflect those recent changes. These changes align with the current job classifications and titles in the CDC. These positions are highlighted in the CDC Resolution and its attached Appendix A.

Board of Supervisors Once local jurisdictions approve their updated conflict of interest codes, they submit them to the Board of Supervisors for approval as the “code reviewing body” for all jurisdictions, except cities, within the County. This board item involves the standard biannual review of conflict of interest code amendments. State law requires that at the close of each even numbered year each agency review its code and determine whether any changes should be made. Amended and newly adopted codes must then be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors, as the code reviewing body for the local agencies. A number of agencies and districts in the County have amended their codes to update position titles, and add or delete positions.

County Counsel has reviewed these changes, and the codes as submitted appear to comply with the requirements of the Political Reform Act. The agencies have been notified that the Board would consider this matter today, and they were requested to notify district employees of their right to be heard on proposed amendments. No one has requested an opportunity to appear.

Prior Board Actions: Biannually, last in 2013: Approved Conflict of Interest Code amendments for various agencies. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement The code is designed to ensure proper conduct and inform the public of such potential conflicts.

Revision No. 20121026-1 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): The action is administrative in nature; no budgetary impacts are associated with this item.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: Resolutions Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Amended Conflict of Interest Codes Submitted by the Agencies for Approval by the Code Reviewing Body

Revision No. 20121026-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code

WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code sections 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes, and WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code and which can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act, and WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission wishes to adopt this standard code and designate which officers and employees should disclose financial interests and describe which interests must be disclosed, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A and Appendix B, in which members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, and 2. Pursuant to Section 4 of the standard code, commissioner members and the Executive Director shall file statements of economic interest with the Community Development Commission, who shall retain a copy and forward the original for filing with the Clerk of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Designated employees shall file statements with the CDC clerk who shall retain them at the main place of business of the CDC. Any CDC Commissioner or other designated employee already required to submit a disclosure statement (Form 700) pursuant to Government Code section 87203 may submit a copy of that statement in lieu of any filing required by this code provided that no additional disclosure would be required by this code.

Resolution # Date: January 27, 2015 Page 2

Commissioners:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

/ /

conflict conflict

extent extent record record perform perform

the the

a a

the the

may may

Consultants Consultants

Consultants* Consultants*

Technical Technical

Supervising Supervising

Senior Senior

Redevelopment Redevelopment

Leased Leased

Housing Housing

Controller Controller

Community Community

Assistant Assistant

Community Community

Affordable Affordable

Administrative Administrative

Executive Executive

Commissioners Commissioners

Designated Designated

description description

disclosure disclosure

broadest broadest

determine determine

of of

and and

Office Office

of of

Housing Housing

a a

the the

Negotiator/Inspector Negotiator/Inspector

Rehabilitation Specialist Specialist Rehabilitation

interest interest

Advisory Advisory

range range

Executive Executive

shall shall

Director Director

shall shall

Housing Housing Community Community

disclosure disclosure

Development Development

of of

Development Development

disdosure disdosure

Employee Employee

Support Support

requirements requirements

the the

in in

be be

Services Services

of of

Manager Manager

Associate Associate

Praject Praject

Manager Manager

be be

writing writing

code. code.

duties duties

retained retained

Committee Committee

consultant's consultant's

included included

Director Director

Assistant Assistant

Supervisor Supervisor

requirements. requirements.

category category

Advisory Advisory

Development Development

Officer Officer

that that

Manager Manager

Assistant Assistant

Associate Associate Committee Committee

for for

described described

CDC CDC

in in

a a

Manager Manager

is is

Member Member

public public

the the

particular particular

duties duties

limited limited

in in

Committee Committee

the the

list list

Manager Manager

Revised Revised

inspection inspection

Specialist Specialist

in in

Member Member

and, and,

The The

of of

code code

in in

this this

APPENDIX APPENDIX designated designated

consultant, consultant,

scope scope

Executive Executive

based based

subject subject

section section

Member Member

in in

January January

and and

in in

upon upon

the the

.. ..

to to

thus thus

employees employees

Director's Director's

although although

Such Such

A A

the the

same same

the the

2015 2015

is is

following: following:

written written

description, description,

not not

manner manner

in in

determination determination

required required

and and

a a

1 1

designated designated 1 1

1 1

Category Category

determination determination

shall shall

and and

The The

a a

to to

location location

statement statement

disclose disclose

Executive Executive

fully fully

is is

position position

comply comply

a a

as as

shall shall

pursuant pursuant

public public

of of

this this

Director Director

the the

hired hired

include include

with with

to to to to

which which

property property

services, services,

travel travel

loans loans

Category Category

Disclosure Disclosure

Category Category

do do

and and

payments, payments,

0nly 0nly

interests interests

business business

including including

2: 2:

1 1 :

travel travel

Categories

investments investments

All All

located located

in in

payments; payments;

investments, investments,

from from

investments, investments,

the the

training training

1 1

geographic geographic

in in

sources sources

that that

and and

all all

or or

sources sources

area, area,

consulting consulting

interests interests

business business

that that

area area

need need

provide provide

of of

APPENDIX APPENDIX

income income

the the

to to

in in

positions positions positions positions

services, services,

be be

real real

Community Community

goods, goods,

reported. reported.

from from

prope1iy. prope1iy.

and and

of of

B B

business business

equipment, equipment,

the the

Development Development

sources sources

income, income,

type type

entities, entities,

of of

utilized utilized

including including

vehicles, vehicles,

income, income,

Commission, Commission,

and and

by by

sources sources

gifts, gifts,

the the

including including

machinery machinery

District. District.

of of

or or

loans loans

income, income,

real real

gifts, gifts,

and and

or or

( (

?- -- County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Sonoma Valley Unified School District has proposed amendments to its code to add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Geyserville Fire Protection District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Geyserville Fire Protection District has proposed amendments to its code to delete positions where employees do not participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Geyserville Fire Protection District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Sonoma Charter School

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Sonoma Charter School has adopted a conflict of interest code and designated employees who participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the proposed code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Sonoma Charter School is approved. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Charter School and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Russian River Fire Protection District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Russian River Fire Protection District has proposed amendments to its code to add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Russian River Fire Protection District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Sonoma County Water Agency and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Sonoma County Water Agency and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District has proposed amendments to its code to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Agency is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Agency and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Petaluma Health Care District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Petaluma Health Care District has proposed amendments to its code to add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Petaluma Health Care District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Sonoma County Fair & Exposition, Inc.

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Sonoma County Fair & Exposition, Inc. has proposed amendments to its code to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Sonoma County Fair & Exposition is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Fair and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Community Development Commission

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Community Development Commission has proposed amendments to its code to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Community Development Commission is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Commission and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Mark West Union School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Mark West Union School District has proposed amendments to its code to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Sonoma Fish and Wildlife Commission

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Sonoma Fish and Wildlife Commission has proposed amendments to update its code; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Commission is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Commission and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Valley of the Moon Water District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Valley of the moon Water District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Valley of the Moon Water District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Rains Creek Water District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Rains Creek Water District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Rains Creek Water District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the River Montessori Charter School

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the River Montessori Charter School has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the River Montessori Charter School is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Charter School and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Rincon Valley Union School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Rincon Valley Union School District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Rincon Valley Union School District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Old Adobe Union School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Old Adobe Union School District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Old Adobe Union School District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Windsor Water District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Windsor Water District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Windsor Water District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Kenwood School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Kenwood School District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Kenwood School District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Stony Point Academy Charter School

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Stony Point Academy Charter School has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Stony Point Academy Charter School is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Academy and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Wright Elementary School District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Wright Elementary School District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Wright Elementary School District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Graton Fire Protection District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Graton Fire Protection District has proposed amendments to update its code and to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Graton Fire Protection District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, Approving Amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Palm Drive Health Care District

Whereas, the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes; and Whereas, state law requires that every two years agencies review their conflict of interest codes and make such changes as are necessary to keep the codes current; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for agencies within the geographic jurisdiction of the County, and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the amended codes comply with law; and Whereas, the Palm Drive Health Care District has proposed amendments to its code to modify job titles and add positions where employees participate in decisions that affect financial interests; Whereas, County Counsel has reviewed the amended code and determined that it complies with the Political Reform Act; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the conflict of interest code of the Palm Drive Health Care District is approved as amended. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the District and County Counsel.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Agenda Item Number: 13 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): General Services Department and Department of Health Services Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Mark DeBacker: 707-565-3915 All Districts Title: Mental Health Crisis Facility Relocation and Expansion Recommended Actions: Authorize the Chair to execute a Master Services Agreement Task Order with TLCD Architecture to provide professional design services for tenant improvements for leased space at 2225 Challenger Way, Santa Rosa, CA, for an amount not to exceed $313,020. Executive Summary: On January 14, 2014, your Board authorized the Director of Health Services to execute the County of Sonoma’s Mental Health Crisis Facility Grant Application Certification, and approved operational components and proposed funding sources under the grant. As noted in the grant application:

“The Behavioral Health Division (SCBHD) of the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS) proposes the relocation and expansion of the County-operated Crisis Stabilization Unit to significantly increase these services for county residents. The SCBHD partners with community health and human service providers, non-profit organizations and criminal justice partners, (including law enforcement agencies) to offer a continuum of comprehensive, multidimensional, population specific, and culturally responsive system of care for mental health crises. However, an essential component of the crisis continuum of care that has not been improved, expanded or enhanced in the past three decades is the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU). Because a CSU is the essential hub of any crisis services continuum, and limited capacity in the CSU impacts all other parts of the crisis continuum, Sonoma County proposes using Investment In Wellness dollars to expand the existing limited capacity. CSU services would be relocated to a newly renovated and redesigned facility that will allow for a significant increase in CSU capacity.”

In early April, 2014, the County received notice of a successful grant award under the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013 to expand critical services, including increased capacity for client assistance and services in crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, crisis residential treatment, and rehabilitative mental health services. In December 2014, the Board approved the Grant Agreement with

Revision No. 20131002-1 the State of California for the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Grant, including an extension of the grant timelines. At that time, staff informed the Board that additional General Fund money may be needed for the capital costs of this project. Since that time, staff has continued to refine the Capital costs, and they are estimated to be $3.36 million, with $2 million being funded by the Grant and the remaining $1.36 million will be funded by Department of Health Services (Mental Health Services Act funds and Realignment funds).There will not be General Fund money needed to complete the Capital Project.

Concurrently, with the development of the grant application by Department of Health Services, General Services Department’s Real Estate team conducted an area-wide search to identify an appropriate facility to lease for the expanded CSU program. 2225 Challenger Way at The Lakes office park (“The Lakes”) in the City of Santa Rosa was identified as the preferred location.

The process of identification of The Lakes site was the outcome of a request from the Department of Health Services to identify sites and facilities that would help them in the submittal of the grant request for funding to further their efforts to develop a Behavioral Health Wellness Campus. The goals and development of a Behavioral Health Wellness Campus is consistent with the intent of SB 82 California Mental Health Wellness Act and past General Services Comprehensive Facilities Plan planning efforts.

Due to the constricted grant submittal timeline, a formal Request for Proposal process was Impracticable. Alternatively, staff made the decision to utilize a process that maximized the number of potential sites to be considered and allowed Health Services to identify a site that could best support its efforts to develop the Behavioral Health Campus concept.

To start the process, potential sites were identified by using “Co-Star,” a data base of publicly available commercial real estate that is widely used by the national real estate community. Sites were screened relative to location, size of the facility and its potential for supporting the Behavioral Health Campus envisioned by the Department. s

Real Estate staff developed a comparative analysis listing all of the appropriate sites identified by the Co-Star database search. Upon examination of the sites and applying fifteen criteria to each site, Real Estate and Health Services staff identified the seven most suitable sites. Key criteria included proximity to community served, proximity to transit, proximity to acute care and psychiatric facilities, capacity to co-locate other related services, and cost to occupy. General Services Staff performed due diligence investigations, developed preliminary test fits and corresponding cost estimates for tenant improvements at these sites. The conclusion was that 2225 Challenger Way at The Lakes office park was the most desirable and cost feasible site and could facilitate the development of the behavioral health campus envisioned by Health Services. The only County-owned site evaluated, Chanate hospital, was found unfeasible.

Behavioral Health operations currently occupies approximately 8,200 sf of the 24,260 sf Norton Center building at the Chanate Campus, which will relocate to the new facility at The Lakes. Staff is now returning to your Board to request execution of a Task Order for professional services to develop design of the tenant improvements that will support the expanded Crisis Stabilization program in 2225 Challenger Way at The Lakes consistent with the terms of the Investment in Mental Health Wellness

Revision No. 20131002-1 Grant Program (“IMHWGP”).

TLCD Architecture is one of four firms with which General Services holds a three-year Master Service Agreement (MSA) as a result of a formal, competitive Request for Qualifications for professional Architecture and Engineering services. Under the MSA, Task Orders may be executed for specific scopes of work. Execution of this MSA Task Order will authorize professional Design Development, Construction Documents, cost estimating and construction phase services for the renovation of 2225 Challenger Way at The Lakes, to house an expanded Crisis Stabilization program. TLCD Architecture, located in Santa Rosa, was selected for the CSU program Task Order based upon its demonstrated expertise in health care facility design, particularly with respect to mental health facilities. For example, TLCD Architecture successfully completed Aurora Behavioral Health Care’s 52,000 square foot psychiatric hospital in west Santa Rosa, as well as the 21,000 square foot Santa Rosa Veteran’s Administration Outpatient Clinic near Airport Boulevard. Staff have reviewed TLCD Architecture’s fee proposal for the proposed scope of work, and find it both reasonable and representing best value to the County. Professional design fees under the Task Order shall be paid for out of IMHWGP funds awarded to the County of Sonoma, per the project funding agreement between Department of Health Services and General Services Department.

Execution of the Task Order for this phase does not commit the County to the full professional fee amount under this Task Order. Fees are charged as accrued on a Not-to-Exceed basis. Reasonable notice may be given to terminate the Task Order should the renovation project be deemed infeasible for any reason. If the renovation project is not executed, professional fees expended up to the decision to terminate would not be reimbursable under the grant, and would be borne by the Department of Health Services.

The renovated facility at The Lakes is consistent with the requirements and grant fund approval from the California Health Facility Financing Authority and will provide space for approximately thirty (30) CSU staff, conference/interview spaces, in-processing/examination spaces, support spaces and separate zones for voluntary clients, secure adults and secure adolescents. Staff will be able to monitor activities in each of these zones from a single open-office area.

Staff will also return to your Board this spring to request execution of the corresponding lease agreement for 2225 Challenger Way at The Lakes, pending negotiation of final terms with the landlord. The landlord’s contractor will construct the tenant improvements as designed.

Non-approval of the Task Order will mean that TLCD Architecture cannot be contracted to provide professional design services for the Crisis Stabilization Program renovation project and, consequently, that the terms of the IMHWGP grant cannot be adhered to, resulting in the probable loss of grant funds. As a result, the DHS Crisis Stabilization Program would not be in position to relocate to a renovated facility with increased capacity, and will continue to operate from its current location in the Norton Center.

Prior Board Actions: January 14, 2014: Accepted update on Department of Health Services’ application for grant funding under the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013; Authorized Director of Health Services to

Revision No. 20131002-1 execute the Mental Health Crisis Facility Grant Application Certification and approved operational components and proposed funding sources under the grant. December 9, 2014: Board accepts an Investment in Mental Health Wellness Grant of $2,000,000 from the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) for relocation and expansion of the Crisis Stabilization Unit; confirmed the authority of the Department of Health Services Director to execute the grant agreement on behalf of the County; and delegated authority to the Department of Health Services Director to carry out the terms of the Agreement. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community This project will significantly enhance the delivery of social support of County clients by providing a more modern facility that allows a staff to attend to more effectively address the needs of multiple client groups from a single, centralized position in a safe, comfortable environment. Fiscal Summary - FY 13-14 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ 313,020 State/Federal $ 313,020 $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 313,020 Total Sources $ 313,020 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Professional design fees under the Task Order shall be paid for out of Investment in Mental Health Wellness Grant Program (“IMHWGP”) funds awarded to the County of Sonoma, per the project funding agreement between Department of Health Services and General Services Department. Funding will be appropriated during 2nd quarter CBA. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: N/A

Revision No. 20131002-1 Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Master Services Agreement Task Order 2706-005 with TLCD Architecture in the amount of $313,020.

Revision No. 20131002-1 Agenda Item Number: 14 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Department of Health Services Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Rita Scardaci, 565-7876 Countywide Title: Driving Under the Influence Program Fee Increase Recommended Actions: Adopt a Resolution establishing amended fees to recover projected costs of providing Driving Under the Influence Program services for the Department of Health Services effective January 27, 2015. Authorize the Department to commence an assessment of alternative service delivery models for its Driving Under the Influence program. Executive Summary: The Department of Health Services (DHS) requests the Board of Supervisors adopt an amended fee schedule effective January 27, 2015 to recover the reasonable cost of providing services in the Behavioral Health Division’s Driving Under the Influence program. This proposed fee increase has been developed in accordance with California law governing services to persons convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, and has been approved by the state. The Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Division, Substance Use Disorder (SUD) programs are funded by a combination of state and federal funding, County General Fund, and fees paid by SUD clients who utilize the programs and services. Fees are based on state and federal approved funding and the projected costs to provide services, including direct labor, indirect labor (clerical, management, and administrative costs), services and supplies, and Countywide cost allocation (A87) charges. The Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program is a mandated program, which includes court-referred programs for individuals convicted of drinking driver offenses. These programs are intended to reduce the likelihood of further DUI violations. Program components are designed to provide structured education, treatment, and monitoring to assist in identifying and resolving alcohol or other drug related problems. The Department is requesting approval of the following adjustments to the DUI Program fee structure. These fees are paid by DUI Program clients. The table below lists proposed fees as well as current fees

Revision No. 20140617-1 for comparison. The proposed fees have been reviewed and approved by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Summary of Proposed DUI Fee Adjustments – Client-Paid Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Increase DUI Program ($) ($) ($) (%) First Offender Program 641.00 735.00 94.00 14.66 First Offender Program Extended 968.00 1,341.00 373.00 38.53 Multiple Offender Program 1,645.00 1,637.00 (8.00) (0.49) Wet and Reckless Program 334.00 364.00 30.00 8.98

The DUI Program has historically been self-supporting through client fees. However, in FY 12-13, projections indicated that the revenues from client fees would likely not cover costs. In June 2012 the Board approved a fee increase effective July 1, 2012, resulting in revenues covering all costs for FY 12- 13. This was the last DUI Program fee increase approved by the Board. In FY 13 14, for the first time in the history of the program, costs did exceed revenues due to increased costs associated with employee benefits, allocated County administrative costs, and allocated Department administrative costs. In addition, the Department determined that the use of Medi-Cal Administrative Activities funding was not appropriate to support this program, resulting in a decrease in revenue. As a result, the Department analyzed the need for fee adjustments for FY 14-15 to ensure that client-paid fees cover projected program costs. The proposed fees listed above represent a 13.64 percent increase against all DUI fees. Variances among the fee increases are the result of a state requirement that all programs maintain the same hourly rate. With this increase, the Division will adjust rates to better match expenses across the program components, and ensure the continued self-sufficiency of the program by ascribing fees that more accurately reflect program costs. The proposed fee increase will be paid solely by clients who enroll in one of the DUI programs after the increased fees are implemented. A survey of surrounding counties and two county run programs indicates that our fees remain comparable and that this request is reasonable. When the Department determines that a DUI Program client fee increase is necessary for the program to remain self-supporting, a request must be submitted to DHCS and approved prior to the fee increase request going to the Board of Supervisors. This fee increase request was approved by the state in November 2014. As such, the Department is requesting a fee increase outside of the normal County fee adjustments process. When possible, based on state approval timing, the Department will include DUI Program fee increase requests in the normal County fee adjustments process. Assessment of Alternative Service Delivery Model The Department also requests Board authorization to conduct an analysis of alternative service delivery models for the DUI program. The DUI program is a mandated program that provides a valued service to the community. Typically there are two models of service delivery. Counties may provide the service directly, as is done in Sonoma County, or they may contract with community-based organizations to meet their obligation (as in Stanislaus, Solano, and Marin). However, whether the county provides the service directly or contracts it out, the levels of service, number of hours of service required, and the content of the educational activities that make up the program are specified in state regulations. The Department’s analysis will take into account such factors as the fiscal implications, legal and regulatory

Revision No. 20140617-1 requirements, staffing, and the potential impact on service quality for providing the service. If it is determined that changes are necessary to the current service delivery model, the Department will return to your Board in the summer of 2015 with its assessment and recommendation. The overall annualized increase in revenue for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program services is estimated at $303,893. Productivity, Efficiency, and Customer Service Plan for Behavioral Health Services: - Monitor client utilization of services, and any changes in service components, to analyze the average cost per client to recommend any future fee changes. - Monitor client fee collections, and clients' ability to pay, to analyze the need for any future fee changes. Summary of Expected Results: - Current costs for each program component will be supported by the revised fee structure as listed above. - The cost to clients in the program will increase. - Participation in the program is a required process for individuals arrested for driving under the influence if they wish to retain or regain their driver’s license. It is unlikely that the increased fees will have a significant impact on the number of clients seeking DUI services. Summary of Results of Prior Year Plan: - Services shall continue to be offered in Santa Rosa and at satellite sites in Sonoma, Petaluma, and Guerneville. Prior Board Actions: On June 26, 2012 the Board adopted a resolution amending fees effective July 1, 2012 to recover the reasonable cost of providing Behavioral Health services for the Driving Under the Influence program. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community Recovering the reasonable costs of providing health services helps to ensure quality services are provided to the community. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 0 County General Fund $ 0 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ 0 State/Federal $ 0 $ Fees/Other $ 0 $ Use of Fund Balance $ 0 $ Contingencies $ 0 $ $ Total Expenditure $ 0 Total Sources $ 0

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): The proposed DUI fee increase will generate an additional $303,893 annually. For the period January through June 2015 that equals $151,947. No additional expenditure appropriations are necessary. The increased revenue will be used to offset current FY 14-15 expenditures. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: Resolution, Fee and Revenue Summary Chart Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Adopting, Confirming And Revising Rates To Be Charged For Special Revenue Fund Driving Under The Influence Program For The Department Of Health Services, Substance Use Disorder Services (SUDS) Section, Effective January 27, 2015. Whereas, Division 4, Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, provides for alcohol and drug programs, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program, including establishment of required maximum rates and program fees; Whereas, the SUDS proposed rates and fees are set at amounts that will enable programs to provide adequately for the immediate and long term continuation of services as required by the State, and will continue to offset the actual cost of services, including the necessary additional staff and positions within the Division to maximize revenues to the County; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt and confirm the rates, fees and schedules for alcohol and drug services provided by the Department of Health Services. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma does hereby adopt the following rates, maximum fees and corresponding schedules for alcohol and drug services provided by the Department of Health Services, Section of Substance Use Disorder Services, as follows: Fee Schedule Substance Use Disorder Services (Maximum fee) First Offender Program DUI $735.00 First Offender Program - Extended DUI (9 month) $1,341.00 Multiple Offender Program DUI: 18 months $1,637.00 Wet and Reckless Program DUI $364.00

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1 Health Services - Fee and Revenue Summary Chart Printed on: 1/13/2015, 2:42 PM Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program

FY 14-15 FY 14-15 Rate Rate Revenue FY 13-14 Fee Description Budget Proposed Dollar % Inc/(Dec) Due To Rate Units Rate Change Change Rate Change

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES 1. Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program1 a. First Offender Program - Serv. Clients 1,557 641.00 735.00 94.00 14.66% 146,358 b. First Offender Program - Extended (9 months) 441 968.00 1,341.00 373.00 38.53% 164,493 c. Multiple Offender Program - 18 Month Clients 1,601 1,645.00 1,637.00 (8.00) (0.49%) (12,808) d. Wet and Reckless Clients 195 334.00 364.00 30.00 8.98% 5,850 Subtotal 303,893

Increase in Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program Fee revenue Over FY 13-14 303,893

JUSTIFICATION (Behavioral Health): 1. Rate changes required to offset DUI Program's projected FY 14-15 expenses. Agenda Item Number: 15 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Department of Health Services Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Rita Scardaci, 565-7876 Countywide Title: Medical-Health Incident Response Guides Agreement Recommended Actions: Authorize the Director of Health Services to execute an agreement with Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. to develop Medical-Health Incident Response Guides, for the period January 27, 2015 through December 31, 2015, in an amount not to exceed $150,000. Executive Summary: This item requests approval of an agreement with Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. to develop Medical-Health Incident Response Guides to support regional public health and medical incident response to emergencies such as earthquakes, infectious disease, foodborne illness, and drinking water incidents. The agreement term is January 27, 2015 through December 31, 2015 and the not to exceed amount is $150,000. Funding source for this agreement is the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding with the City and County of San Francisco approved by the Board on December 9, 2014. The regional project to develop incident response guides was proposed and will be led by the Sonoma County Department Health Services. The Department of Health Services issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of Medical-Health Incident Response Guides (IRG). The announcement was shared nationwide through a number of health and emergency services professional associations. Three responses were received in response to the RFP and were reviewed and scored by a review committee consisting of representatives from the counties of Sonoma, San Mateo, and Napa and from the City of Berkeley. Based on the results of this review, the Department recommends approval of an agreement with Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. (OQA). This project will result in the development of four medical-health IRGs for the following scenarios: 1. Earthquake 2. Infectious Disease Incident 3. Foodborne Illness Incident 4. Drinking Water Incident

Revision No. 20140617-1 Each IRG package will include 3 documents: - Incident Overview describing the hazard, response triggers, lead agency and healthcare partner roles, and disaster impacts - IRG Checklist that details major tasks across the life cycle of an incident - Incident Briefing (ICS-201) form which could serve as the Action Plan for the first operational period for each incident type OQA has extensive experience in developing guides in conformance with the specialized standards and requirements of hospital, public health, and emergency services agencies. In addition to Sonoma County, the completed guides will benefit the 13 local health jurisdictions and over 7 million people served by the Association of Bay Area Health Officials (ABAHO). It is anticipated that the project will be completed by the end of December 2015. Prior Board Actions: On December 9, 2014 the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City and County of San Francisco for the receipt of Urban Areas Security Initiative regional grant funds in the amount of $498,278. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community The development of Medical-Health Incident Response Guides to support regional public health and medical incident response to emergencies such as earthquakes, infectious disease, foodborne illness, and drinking water incidents serves to ensure that community members have access to needed resources in the event of an emergency. This planning effort serves to ensure that the community is prepared and responds appropriately to emergencies and natural hazards. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 150,000 County General Fund $ 0 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ 0 State/Federal $ 150,000 $ Fees/Other $ 0 $ Use of Fund Balance $ 0 $ Contingencies $ 0 $ $ Total Expenditure $ 150,000 Total Sources $ 150,000 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Funding source for this agreement is the Urban Areas Security Initiative via a Memorandum of Understanding with the City and County of San Francisco.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: Agreement with Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None

Revision No. 20140617-1 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

COUNTY OF SONOMA AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (Revision F – Standard Version)

This agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of ______, 20______, ("Effective Date") is by and between the County of Sonoma, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "County"), and Organizational Quality Associates, Inc., a C corporation (hereinafter "Contractor").

R E C I T A L S

WHEREAS, The United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) consolidated the separate San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco Urban Areas into a combined Bay Area Urban Area (“UASI Region”) for the purpose of application for and allocation and distribution of federal Urban Areas Security Initiative (“UASI”) program grant funds; and WHEREAS, San Francisco has been designated as the grantee for UASI funds granted by the DHS through the California Office of Emergency Services (“Cal OES”) to the UASI Region, with responsibility to establish procedures and execute subgrant agreements for the distribution of UASI program grant funds to jurisdictions selected by the Approval Authority to receive grant funding; and WHEREAS, County has entered into an agreement with City and County of San Francisco to receive UASI program grant funds; and WHEREAS, Contractor represents that it is a duly qualified consultant firm, experienced in the preparation of health and medical disaster plans, guides, training, and related services; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board of Supervisors, it is necessary and desirable to employ the services of Contractor for the development of Medical-Health Incident Response Guides and related services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A G R E E M E N T

1. Scope of Services 1.1. Contractor's Specified Services Contractor shall perform the services described in Exhibit A (Scope of Work), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Exhibit A"), within the times or by the dates provided for in Exhibit A and pursuant to Article 7 (Prosecution of Work). In the event of a conflict between the body of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the provisions in the body of this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Cooperation With County Contractor shall cooperate with County and County staff in the performance of all work hereunder.

Page 1 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

1.3. Performance Standard Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in a manner consistent with the level of competency and standard of care normally observed by a person practicing in Contractor's profession. County has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Contractor hereby agrees to provide all services under this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of care, as well as the requirements of applicable Federal, State, and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of Contractor’s work by County shall not operate as a waiver or release. If County determines that any of Contractor's work is not in accordance with such level of competency and standard of care, County, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to do any or all of the following: (a) require Contractor to meet with County to review the quality of the work and resolve matters of concern; (b) require Contractor to repeat the work at no additional charge until it is satisfactory; (c) terminate this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (Termination); or (d) pursue any and all other remedies at law or in equity. 1.4. Assigned Personnel a. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to perform work hereunder. In the event that at any time County, in its sole discretion, desires the removal of any person or persons assigned by Contractor to perform work hereunder, Contractor shall remove such person or persons immediately upon receiving written notice from County. b. Any and all persons identified in this Agreement or any exhibit hereto as the project manager, project team, or other professional performing work hereunder are deemed by County to be key personnel whose services were a material inducement to County to enter into this Agreement, and without whose services County would not have entered into this Agreement. Contractor shall not remove, replace, substitute, or otherwise change any key personnel without the prior written consent of County. c. In the event that any of Contractor’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Agreement become unavailable due to resignation, sickness, or other factors outside of Contractor’s control, Contractor shall be responsible for timely provision of adequately qualified replacements. 1.5. Contract Exhibits This Agreement includes the following exhibits, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein: Exhibit A. Scope of Work Exhibit B. Timeline and Budget Exhibit C. Insurance Requirements 2. Payment For all services and incidental costs required hereunder, Contractor shall be paid in accordance with the following terms:

Page 2 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

2.1. Payment for Services Contractor shall be paid on a deliverables basis in accordance with the budget set forth in Exhibit B (Timeline and Budget), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Exhibit B"), regardless of the number of hours or length of time necessary for Contractor to complete the services. Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional payment for any expenses incurred in completion of the services. Contractor shall submit its bills in arrears on a monthly basis in a form approved by County's Auditor and the Head of County department receiving the services. Bills shall be submitted by email in accordance with Article 12 (Method and Place of Giving Notice, Submitting Bills and Making Payments) of this Agreement. The bills must be scanned, signed originals and shall identify the services completed and the amount charged. Expenses not expressly authorized by this Agreement shall not be reimbursed. Unless otherwise noted in this agreement, payments shall be made within the normal course of County business after presentation of an invoice in a form approved by County for services performed. Payments shall be made only upon the satisfactory completion of the services as determined by County.

2.2. Maximum Payment Obligation In no event shall County be obligated to pay Contractor more than the total sum of $150,000 under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

2.3. California Franchise Tax Withhold

Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 18662, County shall withhold seven percent of the income paid to Contractor for services performed within the State of California under this agreement for payment and reporting to the California Franchise Tax Board if Contractor does not qualify as any of the following: (1) a corporation with its principal place of business in California, (2) an LLC or Partnership with a permanent place of business in California, (3) a corporation/LLC or Partnership qualified to do business in California by the Secretary of State, or (4) an individual with a permanent residence in the State of California. If Contractor does not qualify, County requires that a completed and signed California Form 587 be provided by Contractor in order for payments to be made. If Contractor does qualify, then County requires a completed California Form 590. California Forms 587 and 590 remain valid for the duration of the Agreement provided there is no material change in their facts. By signing either form, Contractor agrees to promptly notify County of any changes in the facts. Forms should be sent to County pursuant to Article 12 (Method and Place of Giving Notice, Submitting Bills, and Making Payments). To reduce the amount withheld, Contractor has the option to provide County with either a full or partial waiver from the State of California.

2.4. Overpayment If County overpays Contractor for any reason, Contractor agrees to return the amount of such overpayment to County, or at County’s option, permit County to offset the amount of such overpayment against future payments owed to Contractor under this Agreement or any other agreement.

Page 3 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

2.5. Federal Funding This Section 2.5 is applicable if all or part of this Agreement will be paid with Federal awards. 2.5.1. Required Information. As a pass-through entity, County is required to provide certain information regarding Federal award(s) to Contractor as a subrecipient. In signing this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges receipt of the following information regarding Federal award(s) that will be used to pay this Agreement: a. CFDA Number: 97.067 b. CFDA Title: Homeland Security Grant Program c. Federal Agency: Department of Homeland Security d. Award Name: FY2014 Homeland Security Grant Program e. Federal Award(s) Amount: $498,278 2.5.2. OMB Circular A-133. As a subrecipient of Federal awards, Contractor is subject to the provisions of U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations (hereinafter “OMB Circular A-133”). In signing this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that it understands and will comply with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. One provision of OMB Circular A-133 requires a subrecipient that expends $500,000 in Federal awards during its fiscal year to have an audit performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. If such an audit is required, Contractor agrees to provide County with a copy of the audit report within 9 months of Contractor’s fiscal year-end. Questions regarding OMB Circular A-133 can be directed to the Sonoma County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office – General Accounting Division. 2.5.3. Audits Contractor agrees that all expenditures of State and Federal funds furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement are subject to audit by County, State agencies, and/or Federal agencies. Contractor warrants that it shall comply with the audit requirements as set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 entitled "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations". County agrees to provide 14-days notice of intent of County to audit Contractor. Contractors subject to the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 shall annually submit an independent audit conforming to OMB Circular A-133, which applies to non-profit organizations. 2.5.4. Copy of Audit Contractor agrees that a copy of audits performed shall be submitted to County no later than 30 days after completion of the audit report, or no later than 9 months after the end of Contractor's fiscal year, whichever comes first. The Contractor's agreement(s) with audit firms shall have a clause to permit access by County, State agencies, and/or Federal agencies to the working papers of the external independent auditor.

Page 4 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

2.5.5. Retention of Audit Report Contractor agrees that audit reports and work papers shall be retained for a minimum of 7 years from the date of the audit report, unless the auditor is notified in writing by County, a State agency, and/or a Federal agency to extend the retention period. 2.5.6. Repayment Contractor is responsible for the repayment of all audit exceptions and disallowances taken by County, State agencies, and/or Federal agencies related to services provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Where allowable costs have been claimed and reimbursed, they will be refunded to the program that reimbursed the unallowable cost either by cash refund or by offset to subsequent claims. 3. Term of Agreement The term of this Agreement shall be from January 27, 2015 to December 31, 2015 unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (Termination) below. 4. Termination 4.1. Termination Without Cause Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, at any time and without cause, County shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement by giving 5 business days' advance written notice to Contractor. 4.2. Termination for Cause Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder within the time and in the manner herein provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Agreement, County may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving Contractor written notice of such termination, stating the reason for termination. 4.3. Delivery of Work Product and Final Payment Upon Termination In the event of termination, Contractor, within 14 days following the date of termination, shall deliver to County all materials and work product subject to Section 9.11 (Ownership and Disclosure of Work Product), and shall submit to County an invoice showing the services performed, hours worked, and copies of receipts for reimbursable expenses up to the date of termination. 4.4. Payment Upon Termination Upon termination of this Agreement by County, Contractor shall be entitled to receive, as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred hereunder, an amount which bears the same ratio to the total payment specified in the Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered hereunder by Contractor bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total payment; provided, however, that if services which have been satisfactorily rendered are to be paid on a per-hour or per-day basis, Contractor shall be entitled to receive as full payment an amount equal to the number of hours or days actually worked prior to the termination times the applicable hourly or daily rate; and further provided, however, that if County terminates the Agreement for cause pursuant to Section 4.2 (Termination for Cause),

Page 5 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

County shall deduct from such amount the amount of damage, if any, sustained by County by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by Contractor. 4.5. Authority to Terminate The Board of Supervisors has the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of County. In addition, the Purchasing Agent or Health Services Department Head, in consultation with County Counsel, shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement on behalf of County. 4.6. Obligations After Termination The following shall remain in full force and effect after termination of this Agreement: (1) Section 2.5 (Federal Funding), (2) Article 5 (Indemnification), (3) Section 9.5 (Records Maintenance), (4) Section 9.5.1 (Right to Audit, Inspect, and Copy Records), (5) Section 9.15 (Confidentiality), and (6) Section 13.5 (Applicable Law and Forum). 4.7. Change in Funding Contractor understands and agrees that County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Contractor in the event that any State and/or Federal agency and/or other funder(s) reduce, withhold, or terminate funding which County anticipated using to pay Contractor for services provided under this Agreement, or in the event that County has exhausted all funds legally available for payments due under this Agreement. 5. Indemnification Contractor agrees to accept all responsibility for loss or damage to any person or entity, including County, and to indemnify, hold harmless, and release County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any actions, claims, damages, liabilities, disabilities, or expenses that may be asserted by any person or entity, including Contractor, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to Contractor’s or its agents’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, or invitees’ performance or obligations under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to provide a complete defense for any claim or action brought against County based upon a claim relating to such Contractor’s or its agents’, employees', contractors', subcontractors', or invitees' performance or obligations under this Agreement. Contractor’s obligations under this Article apply whether or not there is concurrent negligence on County’s part, but to the extent required by law, excluding liability due to County’s conduct. County shall have the right to select its legal counsel at Contractor’s expense, subject to Contractor’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This indemnification obligation is not limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for Contractor or its agents under workers' compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or other employee benefit acts. 6. Insurance With respect to performance of work under this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain and shall require all of its subcontractors, contractors, and other agents to maintain insurance as described in Exhibit C (Insurance Requirements), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Exhibit C"). 7. Prosecution of Work The execution of this Agreement shall constitute Contractor's authority to proceed immediately with the performance of this Agreement. Performance of the services hereunder shall be

Page 6 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

completed within the time required herein, provided, however, that if the performance is delayed by earthquake, flood, high water, or other Act of God, or by strike, lockout, or similar labor disturbances, the time for Contractor's performance of this Agreement shall be extended by a number of days equal to the number of days Contractor has been delayed. 8. Extra or Changed Work Extra or changed work or other changes to the Agreement may be authorized only by written amendment to this Agreement, signed by both parties. Minor changes, which do not increase the amount paid under the Agreement, and which do not significantly change the scope of work or significantly lengthen time schedules, may be executed by the Department Head in a form approved by County Counsel. The Board of Supervisors/Purchasing Agent must authorize all other extra or changed work. The parties expressly recognize that, pursuant to Sonoma County Code Sections 1-11, County personnel are without authorization to order extra or changed work or waive Agreement requirements. Failure of Contractor to secure such written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the Agreement price or Agreement time due to such unauthorized work, and thereafter Contractor shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for the performance of such work. Contractor further expressly waives any and all right or remedy by way of restitution and quantum meruit for any and all extra work performed without such express and prior written authorization of County. 9. Representations of Contractor 9.1. Standard of Care County has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Contractor hereby agrees that all its work will be performed and that its operations shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted and applicable professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable Federal, State, and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of Contractor's work by County shall not operate as a waiver or release. 9.2. Status of Contractor The parties intend that Contractor, in performing the services specified herein, shall act as an independent contractor and shall control the work and the manner in which it is performed. Contractor is not to be considered an agent or employee of County and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, workers' compensation plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits that County provides its employees. In the event County exercises its right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Article 4 (Termination), Contractor expressly agrees that it shall have no recourse or right of appeal under rules, regulations, ordinances, or laws applicable to employees. 9.3. No Suspension or Debarment Contractor warrants that it is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency. Contractor also warrants that it is not suspended or debarred from receiving Federal funds as listed in the "List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs" issued by the General Services Administration. If Contractor becomes debarred, Contractor has the obligation to inform County.

Page 7 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

9.4. Taxes Contractor agrees to file Federal and State tax returns and pay all applicable taxes on amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement, and shall be solely liable and responsible to pay such taxes and other obligations, including but not limited to State and Federal income and FICA taxes. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold County harmless from any liability which it may incur to the United States or to the State of California as a consequence of Contractor's failure to pay, when due, all such taxes and obligations. In case County is audited for compliance regarding any withholding or other applicable taxes, Contractor agrees to furnish County with proof of payment of taxes on these earnings. 9.5. Records Maintenance Contractor shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records concerning all services performed that are compensable under this Agreement, and shall make such documents and records available to County for inspection at any reasonable time. Contractor shall maintain such records for a period of 7 years following completion of work hereunder. 9.5.1. Right to Audit, Inspect, and Copy Records Contractor agrees to permit County and any authorized State or Federal agency to audit, inspect, and copy all records, notes, and writings of any kind in connection with the services provided by Contractor under this Agreement, to the extent permitted by law, for the purpose of monitoring the quality and quantity of services, monitoring the accessibility and appropriateness of services, and ensuring fiscal accountability. All such audits, inspections, and copying shall occur during normal business hours. Upon request, Contractor shall supply copies of any and all such records to County. Failure to provide the above-noted documents requested by County within the requested time frame indicated may result in County withholding payments due under this Agreement. In those situations required by applicable law(s), Contractor agrees to obtain necessary releases to permit County or governmental or accrediting agencies to access patient medical records. 9.6. Conflict of Interest Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and that it will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that represents a financial conflict of interest under State law or that would otherwise conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services hereunder. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interests shall be employed. In addition, if requested to do so by County, Contractor shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a "Statement of Economic Interest" with County disclosing Contractor's or such other person's financial interests. 9.7. Statutory Compliance Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, statutes, and policies applicable to the services provided under this Agreement as they exist now and as they are changed, amended, or modified during the term of this Agreement.

Page 8 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

9.8. Nondiscrimination Without limiting any other provision hereunder, Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, and regulations in regard to nondiscrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, age, medical condition, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, or other prohibited basis, including without limitation County’s Nondiscrimination Policy. All nondiscrimination rules or regulations required by law to be included in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. 9.9. AIDS Discrimination Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of Chapter 19, Article II, of the Sonoma County Code prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, and services because of AIDS or HIV infection during the term of this Agreement and any extensions of the term. 9.10. Assignment of Rights All deliverables and products developed as part of this contract are considered to be in the public domain, to be shared freely and re-used or modified by any interested party. 9.11. Ownership and Disclosure of Work Product All reports, original drawings, graphics, plans, studies, and other data or documents (“documents”), in whatever form or format, assembled or prepared by Contractor or Contractor’s subcontractors, Contractors, and other agents in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the County. County shall be entitled to immediate possession of such documents upon completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall promptly deliver to County all such documents, which have not already been provided to County in such form or format, as County deems appropriate. Such documents shall be and will remain the property of County without restriction or limitation. 9.12. Authority The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that he or she has authority to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Contractor. 9.13. Sanctioned Employee Contractor agrees that it shall not employ in any capacity, or retain as a subcontractor in any capacity, any individual or entity that is listed on any list published by the Federal Office of Inspector General regarding the sanctioning, suspension, or exclusion of individuals or entities from the Federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Contractor agrees to periodically review said State and Federal lists to confirm the status of current employees, subcontractors, and contractors. In the event Contractor does employ such individual(s) or entity(ies), Contractor agrees to assume full liability for any associated penalties, sanctions, loss, or damage that may be imposed on County by the Medicare or Medicaid programs. 9.14. Compliance with County Policies and Procedures Contractor agrees to comply with all County policies and procedures as they may relate to services provided hereunder.

Page 9 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

9.15. Confidentiality Contractor agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all patient medical records and client information in accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. This Section 9.15 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 9.16. Lobbying If any Federal funds are to be used to pay for any services under this Agreement, Contractor shall fully comply with all certifications and disclosure requirements prescribed by Section 319 of the Public Law 101-121 (31 United States Code Section 1352) and any implementing regulations, and shall ensure that each of its subcontractors receiving funds under this Agreement also fully complies with all such certification and disclosure requirements. 9.17. Subcontractors Contractor agrees that any employees or agents of Contractor that assist Contractor in the provision of services shall also satisfy the requirements of this Agreement. In this regard, Contractor understands and agrees that all obligations and prohibitions imposed on Contractor pursuant to this Agreement are equally applicable to each and every individual providing services through Contractor under this Agreement, and Contractor shall assure that such individuals agree to comply with such obligations and prohibitions. 9.18. Licensure Contractor shall obtain and maintain in effect during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, registrations, accreditations, and certificates as required by all Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, manuals, guidelines, and directives, which are applicable to Contractor’s services under this Agreement. Contractor shall further ensure that all of its officers, employees, and agents, who perform services hereunder, shall obtain and maintain in effect during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, registrations, accreditations, and certificates which are applicable to their performance hereunder. A copy of each such license, permit, registration, accreditation, and certificate shall be retained, and current updates of such documents shall be maintained, and made available upon request, not to exceed 3 business days after the initial request, for inspection, review, and/or audit by authorized representatives and designees of County, State, and/or Federal governments during the term of this Agreement and for the applicable records retention period. 9.19. Prohibition on Political Activity with City Funds. In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12.G, Contractor may not participate in, support, or attempt to influence any political campaign for a candidate or for a ballot measure (collectively, “Political Activity”) in the performance of the services provided under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to comply with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12.G and any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by San Francisco’s Controller. The terms and provisions of Chapter 12.G are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event Contractor violates the provisions of this section, San Francisco may, in addition to any other rights or remedies available hereunder, (i) terminate this Agreement, and (ii) prohibit Contractor from bidding on or receiving any new City contract for a period of two (2) years. The Controller will not consider Contractor’s use of profit as a violation of this section.

Page 10 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

9.20. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Compliance Contractor acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions governing DHS/FEMA access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. a. Contractor must cooperate with any compliance review or complaint investigation conducted by DHS/FEMA or Cal OES. b. Contractor must give DHS/FEMA, Cal OES and the Bay Area UASI access to and the right to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the grant and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and information as may be necessary, as required by DHS/FEMA, Cal OES and Bay Area UASI program guidance, requirements, and applicable laws. c. Contractor must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance, and Contractor must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS/FEMA officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports. d. If, during the past three years, Contractor has been accused of discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status, Contractor must provide a list of all such proceedings, pending or completed, including outcome and copies of settlement agreements to the DHS/FEMA/Cal OES awarding office and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. e. In the event any court or administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status against Contractor, or Contractor settles a case or matter alleging such discrimination, Contractor must forward a copy of the complaint and findings to the DHS Component and/or awarding office. The United States has the right to seek judicial enforcement of these obligations. 10. Demand for Assurance Each party to this Agreement undertakes the obligation that the other party's expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired. When reasonable grounds for insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party, the other party may in writing demand adequate assurance of due performance, and until such assurance is received may, if commercially reasonable, suspend any performance for which the agreed return has not been received. "Commercially reasonable" includes not only the conduct of a party with respect to performance under this Agreement, but also conduct with respect to other agreements with parties to this Agreement or others. After receipt of a justified demand, failure to provide within a reasonable time, but not exceeding 30 days, such assurance of due performance as is adequate under the circumstances of the particular case is a repudiation of this Agreement. Acceptance of any improper delivery, service, or payment does not prejudice the aggrieved party's right to demand adequate assurance of future performance. Nothing in this Article limits County’s right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Article 4 (Termination).

Page 11 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

11. Assignment and Delegation Neither party hereto shall assign, delegate, sublet, or transfer any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, and no such transfer shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other party shall have so consented. 12. Method and Place of Giving Notice, Submitting Bills, and Making Payments All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, email, or by U.S. mail or courier service. Notices, bills, and payments shall be addressed as follows: TO COUNTY: Christine Love Sonoma County Department of Health Services Public Health Preparedness 625 5th Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404 [email protected]

TO CONTRACTOR: Organizational Quality Associates, Inc. Mike Edrington, Associate and member of the Board of Directors 4295 SE Augusta Loop Gresham, OR 97080 (503) 750-7816 [email protected] www.Orgquality.com

When a notice, bill, or payment is given by a generally recognized overnight courier service, the notice, bill, or payment shall be deemed received on the next business day. When a copy of a notice, bill, or payment is sent by facsimile or email, the notice, bill, or payment shall be deemed received upon transmission as long as: (1) the original copy of the notice, bill, or payment is promptly deposited in the U.S. mail and postmarked on the date of the facsimile or email (for a payment, on or before the due date); (2) the sender has a written confirmation of the facsimile transmission or email; and (3) the facsimile or email is transmitted before 5 p.m. (recipient’s time). In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be effective upon receipt by the recipient. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to whom notices are to be given by giving notice pursuant to this Article 12. 13. Miscellaneous Provisions 13.1. No Waiver of Breach The waiver by County of any breach of any term or promise contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or provision or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or promise contained in this Agreement.

Page 12 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

13.2. Construction To the fullest extent allowed by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, ordinance, regulation, or law. The parties covenant and agree that in the event that any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. Contractor and County acknowledge that they have each contributed to the making of this Agreement and that, in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of this Agreement, the language of the Agreement will not be construed against one party in favor of the other party. Contractor and County acknowledge that they have each had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. 13.3. Consent Wherever in this Agreement the consent or approval of one party is required to an act of the other party, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 13.4. No Third-Party Beneficiaries Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create and the parties do not intend to create any rights in third parties. 13.5. Applicable Law and Forum This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the substantive law of California, regardless of the law of conflicts to the contrary in any jurisdiction. Any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in Santa Rosa or the forum nearest to the city of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma. 13.6. Captions The captions in this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference. They are not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect on its construction or interpretation. 13.7. Merger This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by both parties. 13.8. Survival of Terms All express representations, waivers, indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in this Agreement will survive its completion or termination for any reason. 13.9. Counterparts and Electronic Copies The parties agree that, where applicable, this Agreement may be executed in counterparts, together which when executed by the requisite parties shall be deemed to be a complete original agreement. An electronic copy, including facsimile copy, email, or scanned copy of the executed Agreement or counterpart, shall be deemed, and shall have the same legal force and effect as, an original document.

Page 13 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00

13.10. Time of Essence Time is and shall be of the essence of this Agreement and every provision hereof.

§ The remainder of this page has intentionally been left blank. §

Page 14 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-AOO

IN WI1NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CONTRACTOR:

I~ , 0 ~ ~ &&"'-:ia NMike Edrington, Lead A Organizational Quality ssociates, Inc.

COUNTY OF SONOMA: Certificate of Insurance on File with County:

-·~~~~~-~~~~- Rita Scardaci, MPH, Director Dated Department of Health Services

Approved as to Substance:

Division Direct~ Dated

Dated /

Page 15 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit A Scope of Work

Project Description: The goal is to develop Incident Response Guides (IRGs) that support regional public health and medical incident response to threats identified in the NPS and the CDPH EOM. These IRGs will be used by Bay Area local health jurisdictions to guide and improve planning, training, exercise, and response to hazard-specific scenarios. Deliverables: This project will result in the development of four medical-health IRGs for the following scenarios: 1. Earthquake (EQ) 2. Infectious Disease Incident (ID) 3. Foodborne Illness Incident (FBI) 4. Drinking Water Incident

Each IRG package will include 3 documents: • an Incident Overview describing the hazard, response triggers, lead agency and healthcare partner roles, and disaster impacts; • an IRG Checklist that details major tasks across the life cycle of an incident; and • an Incident Briefing (ICS-201) form which could serve as the Action Plan for the first operational period for each incident type.

The Department of Homeland Security’s 15 NPS, the current CDPH EOM, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Public Health and Medical Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA), the Regional EQ Plan (RECP-CONOPS), San Francisco’s IDER (Infectious Disease Emergency Response) Plan, local communicable disease control plans, other model IRGs, Contractor’s own experience, and other relevant sources shall be reviewed by Contractor as the basis for the development of these medical-health IRGs. As part of the development and validation of the four IRG packages, Contractor will develop and conduct two Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP)-compliant tabletop exercises, providing all HSEEP-compliant documentation, including exercise plans and after action report/corrective action plan (AAR), for the first two IRGs: Earthquake and Infectious Diseases. All deliverables and products developed as part of this contract are considered to be in the public domain, to be shared freely and re-used or modified by any interested party. All products developed by Contractor shall be made available electronically in editable format (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) so that materials may be reused, edited, and shared as needed.

Contractor’s Responsibilities: • Assure that workshops and tabletops and their documentation meet HSEEP Compliance guidelines. • Schedule and arrange for all meeting locations and exercise venues. Provide equipment when necessary. • Prepare handouts and materials to distribute to all participants at each workshop and exercise.

Page 16 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit A • Make arrangements and pay for materials or refreshments at exercises, in accordance with funding guidelines. • Lead all Workshops and Tabletop exercises in person, providing planning, facilitation, time management, scribe services, and documentation of results to help assure that objectives are met.

Working Groups: Contractor will complete the IRG project through close collaboration with the following persons and groups: • Primary Point of Contact: Sonoma County (Christine Love). The Point of Contact’s role is to: o manage contractor invoicing and other contract issues o serve as primary contact between the Contractor and the IRG Planning Group • IRG Planning Group – 6-7 members from ABAHO counties. The IRG Planning Group’s role is to: o identify members of IRG Steering Committee, IRG Writing Groups, and Tabletop planners and participants o assist Contractor with scheduling and logistics of planned events under this contract o communicate with Steering Committee and Writing Groups o meet with Contractor as needed to address contract issues • IRG Steering Committee: IRG Planning Group plus key stakeholders from partner response organizations. The IRG Steering Committee’s role is to: o review Contractor deliverables and provide feedback o approve draft, revised, and final IRG packages o participate in planning of tabletop exercises and attend tabletops • IRG Writing Groups – Two different Writing Groups will be formed, one for the Earthquake IRG and one for the Infectious Diseases IRG. Each Writing Group is expected to have 6-8 members consisting of ABAHO-PHP members plus other stakeholders. The IRG Writing Groups’ role is to: o prepare for Writing Workshops as requested by IRG Planning Group o meet as a group in person or virtually in workshops to review and revise draft IRG documents developed by Contractor o respond promptly to inquiries from Contractor, Steering Committee, or IRG Planning Group regarding their Writing Group • IRG Tabletop Exercise (TTX) Planning Teams - Two different TTX Planning Teams will be formed, one to validate the Earthquake IRG and one for the Infectious Diseases IRG. The TTX Planning Teams’ role is to: o prepare for the TTX as requested by the IRG Planning Group o review draft TTX documents and provide input to Contractor or others as requested o attend their Tabletop exercise Anticipated Working Process: Contractor is expected to devote considerable time researching IRG models and other documents for content that would be useful in each of the four IRGs under this contract.

Page 17 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit A Writing Workshops for the first two IRGs, Earthquake and Infectious Diseases, will be used to review and edit contractor-provided draft IRG documents in a meticulous line-by-line manner, to ensure development of thoroughly vetted and comprehensive products that have relevance to related plans and source materials used by ABAHO counties. It is expected that each IRG may take 16-24 hours of total Workshop Group time, in addition to Contractor’s development and revision time. The IRG Planning Group envisions one or two all-day Workshops for the EQ and ID IRGs. Contractor may suggest additional Workshop time, whether virtual or in-person, or may suggest alterations to the Proposed Timeline for the IRG project. The Foodborne Illness (FBI) and Drinking Water IRGs will be thoroughly drafted by consultant but will not have writing workshops.

Page 18 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit B

Timeline and Budget

Dates Action # Milestones Deliverables and Total Costs for each Deliverable Comments 2015 1 Project Review proposed timeline and work plan and make any On Jan 28 Point of Contact Planning needed adjustments (POC) and IRG Meeting ($4805.68) Planning Group (IRG - PG) Oakland

Meet in Oakland

2 Kickoff and Kick-Off Meeting notes and detailed project timeline. IRG On Jan 30 POC and IRG Introductory Comparison Document of best practices. Understanding, Steering Meeting agreement and support of Work Plan and Timeline. Committee ($6031.92) (IRG - SC) and IRG -PG Oakland

3 Earthquake Develop and send Draft #1 EQ IRG package for review By Feb 12 IRG-SC IRG: by IRG Steering Committee for revisions Workshops, ($5437.44) Tabletop, and 4 final IRG Comments from IRG-SC to OQA on Draft #1 EQ IRG. By Feb 25 IRG-SC OQA develop Draft #2 ($4531.20)

5 Send Draft #2 to EQ Writing Group By Feb 27 EQ Writing ($0) Group (EQ-WG)

6 EQ-WG 1st Workshop with handouts and presentation for On EQ-WG Draft #2 materials March 5 Oakland (4,078.64)

7 Develop Draft #3 EQ IRG and send to EQ - WG and IRG By EQ-WG and SC for review and comment March 13 IRG-SC ($4531.20)

8 EQ IRG 2nd Workshop with handouts and presentation for On Apr 7 EQ-WG Draft #3 materials Oakland ($4,078.64)

9 Develop final EQ Draft IRG and send to EQ-WG, IRG-SC By Apr 10 EQ-WG, IRG and EQ TTX Planning Team (EQ-TTXPT) and IRG-PG SC IRG-PG and ($5437.44) EQ -TTXPT

Page 19 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit B

Dates Action # Milestones Deliverables and Total Costs for each Deliverable Comments 2015 10 Develop and send initial EQ TTX materials for Initial Planning By Apr 15 EQ - TTXPT meeting with EQ-TTXPT to the EQ -TTXPT and IRG – SC and IRG-SC ($2769.92)

11 Initial Planning meeting for EQ TTX with EQ – TTXPT On Apr 17 EQ-TTXPT ($4091.44) Oakland

12 Develop Draft TTX and HSEEP materials and send to EQ By Apr 22 EQ - TTX and TTXPT and IRG – SC IRG-SC ($4601.60)

13 Midterm Planning Meeting with EQ- TTXPT ($1,876.48) On Apr 24 EQ - TTXPT Conference call 14 Final Planning Meeting with EQ – TTXPT On Apr 28 EQ - TTXPT (total with #13) Conference call

15 EQ Tabletop with Situation Manual and other TTX materials On Apr 30 EQ – TTXPT HSEEP Materials IRG-SC, ($7451.44) IRG-PG, EQ WG, EQ TTXPG in Oakland

16 Earthquake IRG Final By May 15 IRG-SC ($3,676.16)

17 EQ IRG TTX AAR By July 15 IRG-SC ($2,789.12)

18 Infectious Develop and send Draft #1 ID IRG package for review By IRG-SC Disease IRG: by IRG Steering Committee for revisions May 18 Workshops, ($5,437.44) Tabletop, and 19 final IRG Comments from IRG - SC to OQA on Draft #1 ID IRG. By May 28 IRG-SC OQA develop Draft #2 ($4,531,20)

20 Send Draft #2 to ID Writing Group By Jun 1 ID Writing ($0) Group (ID-WG)

21 ID - WG 1st Workshop with handouts and presentation for On Jun 5 ID-WG Draft #2 materials Oakland ($4,078.64)

22 Develop Draft #3 ID IRG and send to ID - WG and IRG-SC By Jun 11 ID-WG and for review and comment IRG-SC ($4,531.20)

Page 20 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit B

Dates Action # Milestones Deliverables and Total Costs for each Deliverable Comments 2015 23 ID - IRG 2nd Workshop with handouts and presentation for On Jun 22 ID-WG Draft #3 materials Oakland ($3,982.64)

24 Develop final ID Draft IRG and send to ID - WG, IRG - SC By July 6 ID-WG, IRG and ID TTX Planning Team SC (ID - TTXPT) and IRG – PG IRG - PG ($4,531.20) and ID - TTXPT 25 Develop and send initial ID TTX materials for Initial Planning By Jul 7 ID -TTXPT and meeting with the ID - TTXPT to the ID - TTXPT and the IRG IRG - SC – SC ($2769.92)

26 Initial Planning meeting for the ID TTX with the ID – TTXPT On Jul 13 ID -TTXPT ($4,091.44) Oakland

27 Develop Draft TTX and HSEEP materials and send to ID By Jul 17 ID - TTX and TTXPT and IRG-SC IRG - SC ($4,601.60)

28 Midterm Planning Meeting with ID – TTXPT On Jul 22 ID - TTXPT ($1,876.48) Conference call

29 Final Planning Meeting with ID – TTXPT On Jul 28 ID - TTXPT (with #28) Conference call

30 ID Tabletop with Situation Manual and other TTX and On Jul 31 ID - TTXPT, HSEEP Materials IRG-SC, IRG ($7,451.44) PG, ID-RG. TTX in Oakland

31 Infectious Disease IRG Final By Aug 14 IRG - SC ($3,676.16)

32 ID IRG TTX AAR By Oct 14 IRG - SC ($2,789.12)

33 Foodborne Identify and select Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) with By Sep 1 IRG - SC and Illness IRG assistance of the IRG - PT and IRG – SC IRG - PT ($0)

34 Develop and send Draft #1 FI IRG package for review By Sep 15 IRG-SC and by IRG Steering Committee and SMEs for revisions SMEs ($5,514.24)

35 Comments from IRG - SC and SMEs to OQA on By Sep 30 IRG - SC and Draft #1 FI IRG. OQA develop Draft #2 SMEs ($3,701.76)

Page 21 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit B

Dates Action # Milestones Deliverables and Total Costs for each Deliverable Comments 2015 36 Draft #2 FI IRG to IRG - SC and SMEs for comments By Oct 7 IRG - SC and ($0) SMEs

37 Comments from IRG - SC and SNEs to OQA on Draft By Oct 21 IRG - SC and #2 FI IRG. OQA develops final SMEs ($5,514.24)

38 Foodborne Illness Incident FINAL IRG to IRG – SC By Oct 30 IRG - SC ($0)

39 Drinking Identify and select Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) with By Oct 1 IRG - SC and Water IRG assistance of the IRG - PT and IRG – SC IRG - PT ($0)

40 Develop and send Draft #1 DW IRG package for By Oct 15 IRG - SC and review by IRG Steering Committee and SMEs for SMEs revisions ($5,514.24)

41 Comments from IRG - SC and SMEs to OQA on Draft By Nov 1 IRG - SC and #1 DW IRG. OQA develop Draft #2 SMEs ($3,701.76)

42 Draft #2 DW IRG to IRG - SC and SMEs for By Nov 14 IRG - SC and comments SMEs ($0)

43 Comments from IRG – SC and SMEs to OQA on Draft By Dec 1 IRG - SC and #2 DW IRG. OQA develops final. SMEs ($5,514.24)

44 Drinking Water Incident FINAL IRG to IRG – SC By Dec 15 IRG - SC ($0)

Page 22 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit C

Insurance Requirements (Template 3 – Rev 2014 Aug 5)

With respect to performance of work under this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain and shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, and other agents to maintain insurance as described below unless such insurance has been expressly waived by the attachment of a Waiver of Insurance Requirements. Any requirement for insurance to be maintained after completion of the work shall survive this Agreement. County reserves the right to review any and all of the required insurance policies and/or endorsements, but has no obligation to do so. Failure to demand evidence of full compliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement or failure to identify any insurance deficiency shall not relieve Contractor from, nor be construed or deemed a waiver of, its obligation to maintain the required insurance at all times during the performance of this Agreement. 1. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance a. Required if Contractor has employees as defined by the Labor Code of the State of California. b. Workers Compensation insurance with statutory limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. c. Employers Liability with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per Accident; $1,000,000 Disease per employee; $1,000,000 Disease per policy. d. Required Evidence of Insurance: Certificate of Insurance. e. If Contractor currently has no employees as defined by the Labor Code of the State of California, Contractor agrees to obtain the above-specified Workers Compensation and Employers Liability insurance should employees be engaged during the term of this Agreement or any extensions of the term. 2. General Liability Insurance a. Commercial General Liability Insurance on a standard occurrence form, no less broad than Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CG 00 01. b. Minimum Limits: $1,000,000 per Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate; $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. The required limits may be provided by a combination of General Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. If Contractor maintains higher limits than the specified minimum limits, County requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by Contractor. c. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall be shown on the Certificate of Insurance. If the deductible or self-insured retention exceeds $25,000, it must be approved in advance by County. Contractor is responsible for any deductible or self- insured retention and shall fund it upon County’s written request, regardless of

Page 23 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit C whether Contractor has a claim against the insurance or is named as a party in any action involving the County. d. "County of Sonoma, its Officers, Agents, and Employees" and "City and County of San Francisco, its officers, agents and employees" shall be additional insureds for liability arising out of operations by or on behalf of the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. e. The insurance provided to the additional insureds shall be primary to, and non contributory with, any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by them. f. The policy definition of “insured contract” shall include assumptions of liability arising out of both ongoing operations and the products-completed operations hazard (broad form contractual liability coverage including the “f” definition of insured contract in ISO form CG 00 01, or equivalent). g. The policy shall cover inter-insured suits between the additional insureds and Contractor and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately. h. Required Evidence of Insurance: i. Copy of the additional insured endorsement or policy language granting additional insured status; and ii. Certificate of Insurance. 3. Automobile Liability Insurance a. Minimum Limit: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident. The required limit may be provided by a combination of Automobile Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. b. Insurance shall cover all owned autos. If Contractor currently owns no autos, Contractor agrees to obtain such insurance should any autos be acquired during the term of this Agreement or any extensions of the term. c. Insurance shall cover hired and non-owned autos. d. Required Evidence of Insurance: Certificate of Insurance. 4. Standards for Insurance Companies Insurers, other than the California State Compensation Insurance Fund, shall have an A.M. Best's rating of at least A:VII. 5. Documentation a. All required Evidence of Insurance shall be submitted prior to the execution of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain current Evidence of Insurance on file with County for the entire term of this Agreement and any additional periods if specified in Sections 1, 2 or 3 above. b. The name and address for Additional Insured endorsements and Certificates of Insurance is: County of Sonoma (DHS)

Page 24 of 25 Contract No. 2015-0001-A00 Exhibit C Contract & Board Item Development Unit 3313 Chanate Road Santa Rosa CA 95404 c. Required Evidence of Insurance shall be submitted for any renewal or replacement of a policy that already exists, at least ten (10) days before expiration or other termination of the existing policy. d. Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if: (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. e. Upon written request, certified copies of required insurance policies must be provided within thirty (30) days. 6. Policy Obligations Contractor's indemnity and other obligations shall not be limited by the foregoing insurance requirements. 7. Material Breach If Contractor fails to maintain insurance which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. County, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, County may purchase the required insurance, and without further notice to Contractor, County may deduct from sums due to Contractor any premium costs advanced by County for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to County.

Page 25 of 25 Agenda Item Number: 16 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Board of Commissioners of the Community Development Commission, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, the Board of Directors of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Human Resources Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Marcia Chadbourne All Title: Risk Management Information System Recommended Actions: Authorize the Interim Director of Human Resources to execute a Participating Entity Service Agreement with the California State Association of Counties – Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA) for utilization of Systema Software LLC’s Risk Management Information System (SIMS), at a one-time cost of $196,480, an annual fee starting at $23,024 (with annual CPI adjustments), and automatic renewals until cancelled. Executive Summary:

This agenda item requests authorization to replace the County’s current liability claims tracking system with a service agreement for access to the Systema Software LLC Risk Management Information System (RMIS) provided through and supported by the CSAC-EIA.

The Human Resources, Risk Management Division, Liability Unit is responsible for administration of the County’s self-insured General Liability Program providing coverage to all County departments, agencies and special districts under the direction of the Board of Supervisors/Directors/Commissioners. Those entities include the Community Development Commission, the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Sonoma County Fair, the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, In Home Support Services Public Authority, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, and the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association.

The County maintains a self-insured retention (SIR) of $1,000,000 per occurrence with excess liability coverage up to $25,000,000 through participation in the CSAC-Excess Insurance Authority. The Unit is also responsible for coordinating all medical malpractice claims filed against the above entities through the CSAC-Excess Insurance Authority’s Medical Malpractice Program, of which the County maintains a

Revision No. 20140617-1 $5,000 deductible.

Average annual program costs for the self-insured liability program over the last five years have been approximately $4,316,207. Included in this amount are the costs of claims and litigation payments, internal staff support in Human Resources and County Counsel, outside defense costs, loss prevention and risk mitigation support of the EEO/ADA programs, and mandatory supervisor and manager training programs.

The Liability Unit:

• Administers all government tort claims (and potential claims) filed against the above listed entities, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Board Resolution 86-2354 and Government Code sections 935.4 and 949. • Conducts claims investigations in coordination with County departments to evaluate liability exposure, consults with affected County department heads to provide the most appropriate response to claimants, third parties, public information requests, media, etc. • Evaluates potential liability of all claims and, where appropriate, the amount of damages and negotiates financially prudent settlements on cases that represent exposure to the County within the Risk Manager’s delegated settlement authority ($25,000), and jointly with County Counsel on claims and litigation up to $50,000. • Evaluates claims and litigation to identify appropriate third party risk transfer through contractor liability, alternative insurance coverage, and possible codefendant liability. Responsible for reporting to excess insurance and coordinates claims administration with CSAC-EIA. • Manages tort defense litigation and coordinates activities between County Counsel and outside defense attorneys. Reviews all litigated cases and ensures defense counsel provides the most efficient and economical handling of litigated cases, evaluating cases for early economical resolution, and / or preparation for trial. • Coordinates all other claims filed under the various insurance programs administered by Risk Management, including medical malpractice, property, airport liability, watercraft, etc. • Coordinates Threat Assessment Team (TAT) assignments Information, data and documentation related to the above tasks are tracked in a claims system for statutory reporting and financial audit requirements, actuarial analysis, and risk management statistics. The County’s current RMIS system is 24 years old, (the most recent system upgrade was in 2000) and is outdated with limited functionality. The current system doesn’t support data analytics, business intelligence, or other advanced functions which current Risk Management Information System provide, and is limited in its ability to maintain a paperless claim filing system. Staff also has difficulty with the obsolete reporting function and are unable to provide meaningful loss reports to customers without a significant amount of manual manipulation Recognizing the need for improved tracking and reporting, Risk Management together with County Counsel, conducted a needs assessment and business process review in Fall 2013. The assessment identified the need to replace the antiquated claims system with a current, “best of breed” RMIS which can be integrated with County Counsel’s existing matters management system, Abacus.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Although there are a number of claim system options meeting the County’s needs, it was determined that leveraging the County’s participation in the CSAC-EIA to utilize their claims/risk management information system vendor, Systema Software LLC (“Systema”), would provide the greatest benefit to the County. Systema’s program (referred to as SIMS) was selected by the CSAC-EIA to replace its own aging RMIS, following a competitive process in 2012/13 which included the evaluation of 9 software products. The CSAC-EIA entered into a Master Software License and Professional Services agreement with Systema Software, LLC on April 4, 2013, and upon your Board’s authorization to execute the Participating Entity Service Agreement, the CSAC-EIA will execute Addendum No. 12 to extend the Software Licensing to include the County of Sonoma. There are significant benefits in leveraging the work effort already completed by the CSAC-EIA. Benefits include a pre-negotiated reduced rate for CSAC-EIA members and complete system hosting services, including maintenance and support through the Information Technology Division of the CSAC-EIA. Additional advantages include the ability to benchmark with other participating members, maintaining consistency in data coding and reporting. Given these benefits, we believe it is most cost effective to access RMIS services provided through the CSAC-EIA rather than procuring a stand-alone system. Information Systems staff were consulted during the evaluation process and concur with this recommendation. A provider of actuarial and risk consulting services to the CSAC-EIA and its members, ranked SIMS as the top claims administration system in Bickmore’s 2013 RMIS Review. To date, seven member counties/public entities have entered into service agreements with CSAC-EIA and three additional entities are currently in system conversions. Some of those entities include the counties of Madera, Tulare, Stanislaus, Fresno and Mendocino. Implementation of an updated RMIS addresses one of the Human Resources department’s objectives outlined in the FY 2014/15 budget, to continue support of Countywide Enterprise Risk Management initiatives through implementation of a RMIS to enhance data reporting and metrics development (see page 59 of FY 2014/15 Adopted Budget). Costs for the system comprised a one-time license fee of $196,480 for system software, perpetual software licenses for five concurrent full access users, custom interface development, data conversion (including data from County Counsel and Fleet Operations) and system training. It is anticipated the useful life of this software product is approximately 10 years, offering an acceptable return on investment when compared with costs of other related systems. The annual maintenance and support fee is $14,024, with annual increases based on the consumer price index (CPI). This fee also includes biannual system updates. Additionally, the new system will be hosted remotely (“cloud hosted”) at an annual cost of $9,000 – an amount that is also subject to annual CPI adjustments. The project schedule anticipates the new system go-live date in the first quarter of FY 15/16.

Prior Board Actions: None

Revision No. 20140617-1 Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 3: Invest in the Future

Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 100,000 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ Existing Additional $ 96,480 Fees/Other $ 196,480 Appropriations $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 196,480 Total Sources $ 196,480 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Fiscal Year 14/15: For the one-time expenses of $196,480, sufficient funds have been budgeted for this project in the Self-Insured General Liability Program - Department budget # 23022500.

Fiscal Year 15/16: Annual maintenance, support and cloud hosting services fees of $23,024 will be budgeted in the Self-Insured General Liability Program - Department budget # 23022500.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step) N/A

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None. Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: 1) Master Software License and Professional Services Agreement between CSAC-EIA and Systema Software, LLC and addendum #12. 2) Participating Entity Service Agreement between CSAC-EIA and County of Sonoma. 3) RFP issued by CSAC-EIA.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 17 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Human Services Department Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Diane Kaljian, 565-5950 All Tracy Repp, 565-5982 Title: Contract amendments for Council on Aging and Senior Advocacy Services for Support Services for Seniors Recommended Actions: Authorize the Director of Human Services to execute amendments to agreements with the Council on Aging (COA) for the provision of senior nutrition and Senior Advocacy Services (SAS) for the provision of Ombudsman Services and Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy, increasing the contracts by $82,846 for COA, for a not to exceed amount of $1,366,619; and $36,249 for SAS, for a not to exceed amount of $605,839 . Both contracts have terms beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015. Executive Summary: The item requests authorization to increase the FY 14/15 base-line contract and add One-Time-Only funding for COA to receive an additional $82,846 making their total contract $1,366,619; and SAS to receive an additional $36,249 making their total contract $605,839 from the Older Americans Act FY 14/15 funding allocation and FY 14/15 One-Time-Only funding. The Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) administers Older Americans Act (OAA) and State funding for contracts with COA and SAS to provide vital senior services. Services provided by COA include adult day respite, case management, congregate and home delivered meals, and legal services. Services provided by SAS include the Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program (HICAP), which counsels individuals regarding Medicare benefits, and the Ombudsman program which supports seniors in long-term care facilities. OAA funding is combined into one contract for each provider. One-Time-Only (OTO) funding comes from unallocated federal funding, penalties charged to California Area Agencies on Aging during the audit processes, and a redistribution of unspent AAA funding statewide on an annual basis. The increase to the 14/15 baseline is a result of the AAA receiving the FY 14/15 OAA allocation from the California Department of Aging after the start of the fiscal year. In order to maintain service and program continuity, the AAA based the initial FY 14/15 contracts on the allocation received for FY 13/14 with the expectation that an amendment would be required based on

Revision No. 20140617-1 the receipt of the actual allocation for FY 14/15. In FY 13/14 and FY 14/15, the Board generously backfilled funding that would have been cut from AAA Service Providers due to the Federal sequester in the amount of $98,080 per year. Due to the increase in OAA funding received in FY 14/15, County Funds are no longer needed to backfill sequestration cut costs and have been removed from the service provider contracts.

Prior Board Actions: May 24, 2011: Board Approved Initial Contracts for 2011-15 Request for Proposal Cycle June 12, 2012: Board Approved Contract Renewals for FY 12-13 June 4, 2013: Board Approved Contract Renewals for FY 13-14 June 10, 2014: Board Approved Contract Renewals for FY 14-15 Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community To provide services to seniors, age 60 and over that assist with maintaining health, independence, socialization, and ability to remain at home. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 1,972,458 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ 1,972,458 $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 1,972,458 Total Sources $ 1,972,458 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Appropriations in the amount of $66,857 have been included in the FY 14-15 budget. The additional amount of $52,238 will be included in the FY 14-15 2nd Qtr. Consolidated Budget Adjustments.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None. Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Council on Aging Contract Amendment #1. Senior Advocacy Contract Amendment #1.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 18 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Permit and Resource Management Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Reg Cullen 565.2502 Countywide Title: Grading and Drainage Plan Check Services Contracts Recommended Actions: Authorize the Director of the Permit and Resource Management Department to execute agreements with two engineering consulting firms, Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers and Green Valley Consulting, to provide grading permit application and grading and drainage plan check review services on an as-needed basis, for a not-to-exceed amount of $48,000 for each contract, with both contracts beginning January 27, 2015 and ending January 26, 2016.

Executive Summary: Due to unforeseen staffing challenges, the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) needs to increase capacity related to grading and drainage plan check services to avoid a backlog of permits. To address the capacity issue, PRMD conducted a Request for Qualifications to identify a pool of qualified firms to provide these services. Four of the six firms submitting Statements of Qualifications were selected and contracts were offered to the two firms that provided competitive and reasonable cost proposals. The estimated need for these services will not exceed $48,000 total. However, since it is difficult to determine the timing of the need and the specific scope of the projects, contracts with two competitive firms are recommended to increase PRMD’s ability to get the needed services in a timely and efficient manner. The $48,000 represents the anticipated cost for the estimated forty projects that will need to be processed during the time period specified. These agreements are all contracts for services as needed with no minimum amount of work guaranteed to any firm.

BACKGROUND The issuance of grading and drainage permits is often required prior to or concurrently with the issuance of other permits, therefore it is important that this workflow is not interrupted. In order to continue to be able to respond to permit applications in a timely manner, PRMD needed to increase its capacity in this area.

Revision No. 20140617-1 SELECTION PROCESS The consulting firms were selected following a standard Request for Qualifications selection process. PRMD posted the request on the County’s purchasing website and sent the request to five known firms providing the required services. Six firms responded and their Statements of Qualifications were evaluated and ranked by a review committee consisting of Division staff. The submissions were scored based on their responses to the following criteria: 1) experience; 2) professional qualifications; 3) completeness of response; 4) effective processes for work tasks; 5) response timeliness; and 6) local preference. Four of the six respondents qualified as local service providers per the County’s Local Preference Policy. Of the four qualified respondents, two have provided acceptable cost proposals and have met all County contract requirements.

Green Valley Consulting Engineers, founded in Santa Rosa in 1997 by Principal Liz Ellis, provides civil engineering, land surveying, landscape architecture, construction management and construction inspection services to North Bay clients, including the Counties of Sonoma, Marin and Lake and the cities of Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and Cotati. They have provided grading and drainage services to PRMD since 2003.

Brelje & Race has been providing professional engineering services in the North Bay Area for 60 years, and maintains a Santa Rosa office. Recent local projects involving grading and drainage services include: Sutter Medical Center, American Ag Credit new headquarters, Sonoma County Airport Runway Safety Area Improvement Project, and the Balleto Winery expansion. Prior Board Actions: n/a Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community These contracts assist the County in verifying code compliance of project plans for grading and drainage work. Compliance reviews protect and preserve structures and residences while establishing and maintaining access for emergency services. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $48,000 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ $48,000 Total Sources $

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): The estimated need for these services will not exceed $48,000 total. However, since it is difficult to determine the timing of the need and the specific scope of the projects, contracts with two competitive firms are recommended to increase PRMD’s ability to get the needed services in a timely and efficient manner. Staff will track expenditures to ensure the two contracts combined do not exceed the budgeted amount of $48,000. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): n/a Attachments: n/a Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Contract with exhibits for Brelje and Race Contract with exhibits for Green Valley Consulting

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 19 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Penngrove Sanitation Zone Board of Directors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Permit and Resource Management Department and Sonoma County Water Agency Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Keith Hanna 565.3628 Second Title: Outside Service Area Agreement with the Penngrove Sanitation Zone-Willowbrook Feeds Recommended Actions: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Penngrove Sanitation Zone) to execute an Outside Service Area Agreement for public sewer service to property located at 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California; APN: 047-213-022. Executive Summary: The Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) received application for an Outside Service Area Agreement (Agreement) to provide public sewer service to property located at 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California. PRMD Well and Septic staff has recommended connection to a local public sewer collection system as the non-standard septic mound system serving the property has failed to meet County requirements for safe sewage disposal.

The application was submitted by the property Owners consisting of the various Trusts as indicated in the Agreement. The Owners have a lease for use with Petaluma Acquisition, a Delaware limited liability company on the Parcel.

Willowbrook Feeds produces poultry feeds used primarily for its own poultry production. The 11.09 acre property is located south of Ely Road and east of Old Redwood Highway between Petaluma and Penngrove. The facility, constructed in 1979, was originally designated as the Lakeville Grower’s Feed Mill, and later renamed Willowbrook Feeds. Willowbrook Creek, from which the facility derives its name, runs north to south along the westerly boundary of the property.

The property zoning designation is Diverse Agriculture, 20 acre density, and the land use is Agricultural Manufacturing. Willowbrook Feeds employs seven full time employees. During normal business hours an average of 20 trucks visit the facility either delivering raw materials or departing with finished products.

Revision No. 20140617-1 It has been determined by PRMD Well and Septic staff that the failing existing septic system does not meet current safe disposal requirements of the County. Accordingly, public sewer service from the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) Penngrove Sanitation Zone (Zone) has been requested because of the lack of expansion area for a suitably designed septic system due to the low elevation of the property, its proximity to Willowbrook Creek, and the potential for product contamination. The City of Petaluma has indicated that it does not have collection facilities in the area of the property to provide the requested sewer service.

All vehicles entering the facility are subjected to a wheel bath of disinfectant to protect the company’s products from bacterial contamination. The wheel bath waste is currently collected in a sump and pumped to a holding pond where it is comingled with water stored for fire suppression. Visitors to the facility are cautioned to keep vehicle windows closed until they have safely passed through the disinfectant station.

Upon connection to the public sewer system, the wheel bath waste will be discharged into the waste stream from the facility. The chemical components of the wheel bath solution have been reviewed by the Water Agency’s Industrial Waste Compliance Division and found to be innocuous in the sewage treatment process.

Daily sewage disposal from the facility includes that of employees, daily transport operators and other occasional visitors and is estimated at 1,100 gallons of discharged wastewater, which is equal to 6.11 Equivalent Single-family Dwelling (ESD).

Sewage disposal from the facility shall be provided by an on-site private sewage collection system equipped with a private dual pump lift station and force main to discharge the sewage to an existing sewer main located on the north side of Ely Road. In accordance with Water Agency Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities (Standards) and the California Plumbing Code, plans for the private on-site collection system and private dual pump lift station and force main system shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to the PRMD Engineering Division for review by the Water Agency and the PRMD Engineering Division, and ultimately for PRMD approval prior to issuance of sewer construction permits.

Prior to connection to the Penngrove collection system, Willowbrook Feeds shall submit to PRMD a completed Survey for Commercial/Industrial Waste Discharge Requirements (survey) along with internal building plumbing plans, for all buildings with sewer drainage facilities, to the Engineering Division of PRMD. The survey will be evaluated by the Water Agency’s Industrial Waste Compliance Division for the issuance of an Industrial Waste Permit. Willowbrook Feeds shall comply with the conditions and requirements of the Industrial Waste Permit before being allowed to connect to the sewer collection system. To allow for monitoring of the sewage waste stream by the Water Agency’s Industrial Waste Compliance Division, a Sampling Manhole shall be constructed upstream of the private lift station in accordance with Standard Detail 120-B of the Water Agency’s Standards as a part of the on-site collection system.

The licensed, bonded contractor responsible for construction of the sanitation facilities shall pay for and obtain all necessary permits from PRMD prior to commencing construction. In addition to the permit required to install the sanitation facilities, the contractor shall pay for and obtain a County Road Encroachment Permit for authorization to commence construction activities within the County’s Right

Revision No. 20140617-1 of Way on Ely Road.

Connection to the Zone’s collection system shall be made with a standard four inch diameter gravity lateral, connecting the facility’s pumping system force main to the existing 10 inch gravity sewer main within the north side of Ely Road. The lateral will be installed in accordance with Standard Detail 128 of the Water Agency’s Standards. Following connection of the facility to the collection system, the on-site disposal system will be decommissioned and the tank(s) abandoned under issuance of a Tank Destruct Permit from PRMD.

In accordance with Zone ordinances and prior to connection to the collection system, Willowbrook Feeds must pay “sewer demand fees” to the City of Petaluma, as established by the most recent City fee ordinance. Evidence of payment to the City of Petaluma must be presented at PRMD prior to payment of Sewer Connection Fees and Annual Sewer Service Charges to the Zone.

Willowbrook Feeds is required to submit an application for review of the Agreement by the Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The Agreement shall not be effective until it has been approved by LAFCO and recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder’s Office.

Prior Board Actions: n/a Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community The agreement provides safe disposal of sewage. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): n/a

Revision No. 20140617-1 Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): n/a Attachments: A) Draft Resolution B) Outside Service Area Agreement Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: n/a

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board Of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Penngrove Sanitation Zone), Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Authorizing The Chair To Execute An Outside Service Area Agreement Between The Sonoma County Water Agency (Penngrove Sanitation Zone) And Marcia R. Shainsky Living Trust, Allen B. Shainsky Exempt QTIP Trust, Allen B. and Marcia R. Shainsky Special Trust No. 1, Survivor's Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Bypass Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Marital Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, 2002 Lawrence Lai & Esther Lai Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2002, Michael & Connie Lum Family Trust, and Charlene Lai Hong, For Public Sewer Service To Property Located At 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California, Assessor Parcel Number 047-213-022.

Whereas, the Marcia R. Shainsky Living Trust, Allen B. Shainsky Exempt QTIP Trust, Allen B. and Marcia R. Shainsky Special Trust No. 1, Survivor's Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Bypass Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Marital Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, 2002 Lawrence Lai & Esther Lai Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2002, Michael & Connie Lum Family Trust, and Charlene Lai Hong, collectively hereinafter “Owners”, own Assessor Parcel Number 047-213-022, hereinafter "Parcel" located at 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California; and

Whereas, the Owners have requested an Outside Service Area Agreement, hereinafter "Agreement", for public sewer service to an existing feed and grain production facility, lessee as Petaluma Acquisition, a Delaware limited liability company on the Parcel; and

Whereas, the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department, hereinafter "PRMD", has determined that the Parcel is located outside the Sonoma County Water Agency, hereinafter “Water Agency,” Penngrove Sanitation Zone, hereinafter “Zone”, boundary and is not entitled to connect to or use of Zone sanitation Resolution # Date: Page 2

facilities; and

Whereas, PRMD staff has further determined that the Parcel is located outside the Zone’s Urban Service Area boundary as shown on the Sonoma County 2020 General Plan Land Use map; and

Whereas, the PRMD Comprehensive Planning Division has determined that the Agreement is consistent with the policies of the Sonoma County 2020 General Plan; and

Whereas, the PRMD Comprehensive Planning Division has further determined that the Agreement is restricted to serve only the existing on-site facility and does not authorize service for additional or expanded development on the Parcel; and

Whereas, the PRMD Environmental Review Division has determined that the Agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(b), as it authorizes the permitting of an additional connection to an existing public facility; and

Whereas, the PRMD Well and Septic Division has determined that the existing on-site mound sewage treatment and disposal system (septic mound system), is no longer operating in a manner that meets Sonoma County requirements for safe on-site sewage disposal, and that a public sewage collection system is available and located nearby; and

Whereas, the PRMD, Well and Septic Division has further determined that insufficient area exists on the Parcel for replacement of the existing on-site sewage system because the Parcel is located in the 100-year elevation flood plan (“F-2”) as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “Flood Insurance Rate Maps”; and

Whereas, PRMD has determined that the Parcel is not currently subject to subdivision and will not be subject to subdivision within the duration of the Agreement, and therefore extension of sewer service to the Parcel does not increase the potential for development on the Parcel; and

Whereas, due to the low elevation of the facility, sewage collection is proposed to be provided by a private on-site sewage collection system, private dual pump lift station and force main facilities conforming to the Water Agency’s Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities, hereinafter “Standards”; and

Whereas, PRMD has further determined that the Parcel is not located in the service area of any city, other district or zone having the ability to provide the requested sewer service; and

Whereas, the Zone has stated that it has sufficient sewage collection and treatment Resolution # Date: Page 3

capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to the Parcel; and

Whereas, the Parties have agreed to the terms of the Agreement which will become effective upon execution by the Parties, approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Sonoma County, hereinafter “LAFCO”, and the subsequent recording of the Agreement as specified in the Agreement; and

Whereas, the Zone has determined that the private on-site collection system, dual pump lift station and force main shall be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the Water Agency’s Standards, including, but not limited to, calculations related to sanitary sewage lift station wet well buoyancy, pump cycling, pump discharge system curve graphed against the selected pump curve, and wet well volume. The lift station vent outlet and controls shall be placed a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100 year FEMA flood elevation. The maximum discharge capacity of the lift station with both pumps discharging shall be limited to 100 gallons per minute.

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Zone hereby finds, declares and orders as follows:

1. That the Zone agrees to provide public sewer service to the Parcel subject to the information and conditions specified above, requirements specified by the Water Agency in order to meet sewer construction and operation standards, and the terms and conditions set forth below and in the Agreement between the Parties which is the subject of this Resolution.

2. The Agreement shall not be effective until such time as LAFCO has reviewed and approved the Agreement, and the Agreement has been recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder’s Office as notice to any future purchasers of, or successors in interest to, the Parcel.

3. The Zone has determined that there is currently adequate capacity available in the Zone’s sewage collection facilities. The City of Petaluma has determined that there is currently adequate capacity available in the City of Petaluma’s sewage treatment facilities to accommodate the 6.11 ESD billing units, based on 1,100 gallons of daily discharged wastewater, allowed for the subject parcel (40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California, APN: 047-213-022).

4. The Owners shall limit connection to the Zone’s collection system to the existing feed and grain production facility (office and mill) located on the Parcel.

5. The Owners shall annex or support proceedings to annex, or support proceedings that would lead to annexation of the Parcel to the Zone, and shall waive all rights to protest annexation to the Zone if such annexation proceedings are commenced.

6. If the Parcel is subdivided within the duration of the Agreement, the Agreement Resolution # Date: Page 4

shall become null and void, and the sewer connection shall be deemed illegal.

Be It Further Resolved that the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Penngrove Sanitation Zone) is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement with the Owners to serve the Parcel with sewer service that is limited to a maximum of 6.11 Equivalent Single-family Dwelling billing units for the existing feed and grain production facility of the Parcel.

Be It Further Resolved that the PRMD Environmental Review Division is directed to file a California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption for the Agreement.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

RECORD AT NO FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE 6103

RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, California 95403

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Engineering Division Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95403

OUTSIDE SERVICE AREA AGREEMENT

The following is an Outside Service Area Agreement between the Sonoma County Water Agency, hereinafter "Water Agency", on behalf of the Penngrove Sanitation Zone, hereinafter "Zone", and the Marcia R. Shainsky Living Trust, Allen B. Shainsky Exempt QTIP Trust, Allen B. and Marcia R. Shainsky Special Trust No. 1, Survivor's Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Bypass Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, Marital Trust Created Under the Baum Family Trust Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988, 2002 Lawrence Lai & Esther Lai Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2002, Michael & Connie Lum Family Trust, and Charlene Lai Hong, collectively hereinafter "Owners", of Assessor Parcel Number 047- 213-022, hereinafter "Parcel" located at 40 Ely Road, Petaluma, California.

Whereas, the Water Agency owns and operates the Zone, which provides public sewer collection service to residents and businesses in the unincorporated Penngrove area of Sonoma County; and

Whereas, collected sewage is treated by the City of Petaluma, hereinafter "City", pursuant to an agreement between the Water Agency and the City; and ,

Whereas, the Owners have requested an Outside Service Area Agreement, hereinafter "Agreement", for public sewer service to an existing feed and grain production facility (Willow Brook Feed) on the Parcel; and

:- Whereas, the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department, hereinafter "P.R.M.D." has determined that the Parcel is located outside the Zone boundary and is not entitled to connect to or use of Zone sanitation facilities; and Whereas, P.R.M.D. has further determined that the Parcel is located outside the Zone's Urban Service Area boundary as shown on the Sonoma County 2020 General Plan Land Use map; and

Whereas, the P.R.M.D. Comprehensive Planning Division has determined that this Agreement is consistent with the policies of the Sonoma County 2020 General Plan; and

Whereas, the P.R.M.D. Comprehensive Planning Division has further determined that this Agreement is restricted to serve only the existing on-site facility and does not authorize service for additional or expanded development on the Parcel; and

Whereas, the P.R.M.D. Environmental Review Division has determined that this Agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(b), as it authorizes the permitting of an additional connection to an existing· public facility; and

Whereas, the P.R.M.D. Well and Septic Division has determined that the existing on-site mound sewage treatment and disposal system is no longer operating in a manner that meets Sonoma County requirements for safe on-site sewage disposal, and that a public sewage collection is available and located near-by; and

Whereas, the P.R.M.D. Well and Septic Division has further determined that insufficient area exists on the Parcel for replacement of the existing on-site sewage system because the Parcel is located in the 100-year elevation flood plain ("F-2") as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "Flood Insurance Rate Maps"; and

Whereas, due to the low elevation of the facility, sewage collection in proposed to be provided by a private on-site sewage collection and discharge system comprised of pipes, manholes, cleanouts, sampling manholes, dual pump sewage lift station, force main, and four-inch diameter gravity lateral connection to the existing public 10-inch diameter gravity collection system in Ely Road; and

Whereas, P.R.M.D. has determined that the Parcel is not located in the service area of any city, other district or zone having the ability to provide the requested sewer service; and

Whereas, the Water Agency has stated that· the Zone has sufficient sewage collection capacity, and the City of Petaluma has stated that it has sufficient treatment capacity to provide public sewer service to the Parcel; and

Whereas, the Owners have stated and P.R.M.D. has confirmed that the Parcel is not currently subject to, and will not be subject to subdivision within the duration of this Agreement. The Water Agency has relied upon this representation and would not have entered into this Agreement if the Parcel could now or in the future be subdivided. If the Parcel is subdivided within the duration of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become null and void; and

2 Whereas, the Water Agency has determined that the private on-site collection and discharge system shall be designed by a registered civil engineer in accordance with Water Agency "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitation Facilities", hereinafter "Standards", including but not limited to, calculations related to sanitary sewage lift station wet well buoyancy, pump cycling, pump discharge system curve graphed against the selected pump curve, and wet well volume. The lift station vent outlet and controls shall be placed a minimum of 1.0 foot about the 100-year flood elevation. The maximum discharge capacity of the lift station with both pumps discharging shall be limited to 100 gallons per minute.

Whereas, the Parcel is subject to flooding from Willow Brook and therefore connection to the Zone's sewage collection system shall be performed in compliance with Water Agency Standards, including but not limited to provisions related to areas subject to flooding, the installation of an Owner maintained back:flow prevention valve or valves, mechanical plugs in cleanouts, bolt down and gasketted cover for the lift station, bolt down and gasketted frames and covers for the manholes and sampling manholes, and other pertinent Standards.

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Water Agency agrees to provide public sewer service to the Parcel subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein:

1. The Owners agree to submit an application to the Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission, hereinafter "LAFCO" for review and approval of this Agreement, and to pay the LAFCO application fee as determined by the LAFCO fee schedule. The Water Agency's approval of this Agreement is conditioned upon the review and approval of this Agreement by LAFCO. This Agreement is based upon and appears to be consistent with the criteria adopted by LAFCO for Outside Service Area Agreements.

2. The Owners agree to limit connection to the Zone's sewage collection system to the existing feed and grain production facility (office and mill) located on the Parcel. ·

3. The Owners agree to have sewer construction improvement plans for the private collection system, lift station and force main designed and prepared by a registered civil engineer . in confo.rmance with Water Agency Standards, to pay plan check fees and to submit the improvement plans, including all required engineer lift station calculations, to the P.R.M.D. Engineering Division for review by P.R.M.D. and the Water Agency, and ultimately for P.R.M.D. approval prior to issuance of sewer construction permits.

4. The Owners agree to obtain all requisite permits from P.R.M.D. and to pay all fees for · inspection of the installation of sewer piping to the existing feed and grain production facility.

5. The Owners agree to pay sewer demand fees to the City of Petaluma in an amount determined by the latest City of Petaluma fee ordinance establishing this fee. The Owners further agree to submit evidence of payment to the P.R.M.D. Engineering Division when the Sewer Connection fee for the existing feed and grain facility is paid to the Water Agency.

6. The Owners agree to pay Sewer Connection fees and annual Sewer Service Charges for public sewer service to the Parcel in accordance with Water Agency ordinances and requirements

3 applicable to the Zone, as they currently exist or may be amended, revised or enacted in the future ("Water Agency Requirements"). The Owners further agree that the Sewer Connection Fee shall be for 6.11 Equivalent Single-family Dwelling (E.S.D.) billing units for sewer connection and 6.11 E.S.D.s for annual sewer service to the existing feed and grain production facility, based upon 1,100 gallons of daily discharged wastewater, unless and until the Water Agency determines otherwise, based on Water Agency Requirements and/or based on adoption of a different billing method in the future. The connection fee and annual sewer service charges shall be paid to P.R.M.D. prior to commencement of sewage discharge to the Zone's collection system. Annual sewer service fees thereafter will be placed on the property tax roll and collected with the property taxes.

7. The Owners agree to submit a completed Survey for Commercial/Industrial Wastewater Discharge Requirements with plumbing plans for all buildings with sewage drainage facilities to the P.R.M.D. Engineering Division prior to connection to the Zone's collection system, for review by the Water Agency's Industrial Waste Division. All requirements in the Commercial/Industrial Wastewater Discharge Survey shall be met prior to the commencement of wastewater discharge to the Zone's collection system.

8. The Owners agree to accept responsibility, including but not limited to payment for the installation, operation and maintenance of new sewer piping from the Zone's sewer main located in Ely Road, to the existing feed and grain production facility including, but not limited to a side sewer, a backflow prevention valve(s), private on-site collection system, a Water Agency Standard Drawing No. 120-B sampling manhole upstream of the lift station, a private dual pump sewage lift station and force main, and other pertinent Standards. The lift station vent outlet and electrical controls shall be located a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100-year F.E.M.A. flood elevation. Installation, operation and maintenance shall be in accordance with Water Agency Standards and Codes, and County Encroachment requirements as they now exist or may be amended in the future.

9. The Owners agree to accept all responsibility for restoration of existing conditions including but not limited to surfacing, landscaping, utilities and other public improvements that have been disturbed due to the construction of sewer piping and appurtenances to the Parcel. The Owners further agree that restoration shall be completed prior to the Water Agency's acceptance of the sewer connection unless otherwise specifically approved in advance by P.R.M.D.

10. The Owners agree to accept all responsibility for loss or damage to any person or entity, and to defend, indemnify, hold harmless and release the County of Sonoma and the Water Agency, their officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all actions, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the Owners, arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Owners hereunder, whether there is concurrent negligence on the part of the County or Water Agency, but excluding liability due to the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the County or Water Agency.

11. The Owners agree to annex or to support proceedings to annex, or to support proceedings that would lead to annexation of the Parcel to the Zone, and to waive all rights to protest annexation to the Zone if such annexation proceedings are commenced in the future.

4 12. If the Parcel is annexed to the Zone in the future, this Agreement shall be terminated as a condition of such annexation, and the Parcel shall be subject to all regulations, conditions, and fees as established by the Zone with respect to public sewer service.

13. If the Parcel is subdivided within the duration of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become null and void. 14. The Owners, any future purchasers of, or successors in interest to the Parcel shall have the rights to repair, remodel, or replace the existing feed and grain production facility when the existing facility has been connected to the Zone's sewage collection system, but not in a way that increases the amount or changes the composition of sewage discharge, and subject to all applicable planning requirements.

15. Connection to the Zone's sewage collection shall be performed in compliance with Water Agency Standards, including provisions related to areas subject to flooding, which include but are not limited to, the installation and an Owner maintained backflow prevention device(s), mechanical plugs in cleanouts, bolt down and gasketted cover for the lift station, bolt down and gasketted frames and covers for the manholes and sampling manholes, and other pertinent Standards.

16. This Agreement shall not be effective until such time as LAFCO has reviewed and approved this Agreement, and this Agreement has been recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder's Office as notice to any future purchasers of, or successors in interest to the Parcel.

17. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create any rights for third parties.

18. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement that shall be binding on all of the parties, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart.

19. This writing is intended both as the final expression of this Agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the included terms, and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of this Agreement, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by all parties. {

WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written below. ·

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY APPRO'fRJ AS TO FORMb

By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By: [ytM;J{ l(h ~t:~ Chair of the Board of Directors County Counsel

5 ---~----·----·-·---~-----~------

ATTEST:

By:_~~~-~~~~~ Clerk of the Board of Directors

Date: ------

ACKN0\VLEDCMENT

) : SS. )

On before me, notary public, R sonally appeared ______...,_ __, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the p son(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the in instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed e same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and at by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) r the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, execu the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF Y under the laws of the State of Cali£ ia that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Notary Public

State of---- ) : SS. County of ___ )

On b ore me, notary pu13 ·c, personally appe.ared ------7-" who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the p son( s) whose name( s) is/are subscribed to the wi n instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the e in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), d that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the ent1 upon behalf of which the person(s) ac d, executed the instrument.

er PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing para

SS my hand and official seal.

Notary Public

6 ACKNOV/LEB6MEP'ff

I certify under PENALTY OF PE true and correct.

Notary Public

7 OWNERS:

By: 71_/~~- /(__ r

Date: /- <)o - /i

David R. Vogen, Co-Trustee, Allen B. Shainsky Exempt QTIP Trust

Date:_/_-_3_u_·---_._/_Y-+-,--· ____ Date: I -Jc-; Y

By: f)~ f{ (/!Jzb David R. V ogen, Trustee, Allen B. and Marcia R. Shainsky Special Trust No. 1

~ ?c. ._./ a. Date: I / / ~~~~~~--'-~~~~~~~-.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California) County of <5J VlD WtPJ ; ss.

On / ( ?£> { {t{ , before me, j: tfa,vvU {-kt[/\ notary public, personally appeare~arcia R. Shainsky who proved to me on th is of satisfactory evid~t> be the perso~ whose name~ subscribed to the within instrument and ~ki;owledged to me that~/they executed the same in hts~r/tbeirauthorized capacity(i.es1, and that by.ftig~Jaeit: signatureEs-) on the instrument the perso1Jk8', or the entity upon behalf of which the person~ acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California)

County of .s:o n 01/1 /Jf" ) SS.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

KELLY J. HAMILTON c Commission # 2000792 ~~ I Notary Public - Callforn/a :z J9 ~ ···- _ Sonoma County ~ ~gozi: Expires Jan 9, 2017 t ;p 4 4 Ek Jilt4ti~13~~·.r·

9 t'~ By: ~(k.._·-·-...... -:·k-A~·~l.,_,~('. ~» ...... 1IL---_· ~---~V"---/ __· - By:~C~~=----;-/~~-·....,..._.,,_·- Paulette Miller, Co- Trustee Estelle Baum, Co- Trustee of The Survivor's Trust, Created of The Survivor's Trust, Created Under The Baum Family Trust, Under The Baum Family Trust, Under Agreement Dated Under Agreement Dated · November 17, 1988 November 17, 1988

Date: I/ ],,r ! I 'f Date: ----+'(-~---+]-' ~--'------~7--=-~7~'------~

By: ·~ .lcO'--' ~~ By:~~--~~··--+--;L_- -- Paulette Miller, C~- Trustee Estelle Baum; Co- Trustee of The Bypass Trust, Created of The Bypass Trust, Created Under The Baum Family Trust, Under The Baum Family Trust, Under Agreement Dated Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988 November 17, 1988

Date: I /2-3 /1 L( --+-,-}+-"---~------

0 ~ By: ~ 0>.~.fJe. __:-(y\_~_JJ~ By: lk1L Paulette Miller, Co- Trustee --E-s-te_ll_e_B_a_um+c~.~=C~o~--T_r_u-st_e_e~~~- of The Marital Trust, Created of The Marital Trust, Created Under The Baum Family Trust, Under The Baum Family Trust, Under Agreement Dated Under Agreement Dated November 17, 1988 November 17, 1988

Date: t fl._S// 1 I.._/ Date: j /z_ 'if !l'f ~~)~~le-'--~~~~~~~~- --'-1-=-~1~~~~~-

10 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California) County of ~PJ ) ss.

On before me, notary public, personally appeiarPaul e Miller wh. o proved to me on the basi of satisfactory evidence to be the person,'81 whose name is arHttbscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that~/they-executed the same in ffi.s e Vtheirauthorized capacity(~ and that by ~/their signatureEst-on the mstrument the personW,-or the entity upon behalf of which the person)0 acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

. . . 9 0 a 2 7 nm· 0 9 • 1 WITNESS my hand and official seal. rU I lufJ. IJllli . • Commlltlon • 2000792 z c Notary Public • California ~ ~ Sonoma County ... ~ - • . Mv Comm ExoirP.s J~n 9. ?r117 t

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California)

County of S:>rtOV\11.t:t ) ss.

On tfu; Jtf. before mo, i{.et{,14/ t/aurJton, notruy public, P=On•lly stelle 'Baum ~ho proved to me on the basiS(;f satisfactory eviden_ce}5\~e the person!XJ whose name i are-subscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that ~t.ftey-executed the same in · e Vtlreirauthorized capacity(~ and t~by ~1:heir signature~-on the mstrument the pers~ or the entity upon behalf of which the person'8Jacted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~~MP

11 By: ~l~y.~t:~ Michael Lum, Co-Trustee, C6nnie Lum, Co-Trustee, Michael ~onnie Lum Family.~rust Michael & Connie Lum Family Trust Date: / !JclA~f/1ZiJJt Date: ~ 1:q 3 f, :J-e 17(- \ u I ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of {tA. ) : SS. County of ~\ \)) t'O.do )

On Jan. ·~\'!>1' l.c\4, before me, JG\Mf l -Stv\lhlYY.\f tY notary public, personally appeared Michael Lum who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) -whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and co t.

. JAMIE STROHMAIER Commission # 190587 4 z Notary Public - California z )> El Dorado County M Comm. Expires Sep 27, 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Stateof Cfl, ) : SS. County of ID [X)tr.AdO )

On ,bn. 0 \8' VD I\{ before me, <. hm f .f. Jfro hWlt'H tr , notary public, personally appeared Comrie Lum who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be 1he person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by bis/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person( s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correc

JAMIE STROHMAIER .. Commission# 1905874 i Notary Public - California ~ J• El Dorado County ? 0 , 0 0 z;;Ml t\2014 0 ~oT"!· ~r:,s geg 5 0 l 12 By:~~-----'"=-·~~~-~ By:~L~ LawrenceLai}C(;Tlee, EStJLai, Co-Trustee, 2002 Lawrence Lai & Esther Lai 2002 Lawrence Lai & Esther Lai Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2002 Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2002

Date: Date: J tJ drJ (If ~~~rr~~~7r-~~---''---~~~~-//!a ,/izo-?~ t/ I ACKNOWLEDGMEff I

State of Q,(\ < ) ~1~ :ss. County of C02>'f4 )

On I 1:, f before me, /Z-@ ~ ~ Lvi41-\ notary public, personally appeared Lawrence Lai who prc/ved to e on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personif>) whose name(};) is/ai=e subscribed to the within instnlment d acknowledged to me that he/~y executed the same in his~ a6.thorized capacity~), and that by his~ signature~) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

~filseaL - .. _.ICENO. IMAH ....,,"'"... ftU8UC. CAUf'ORNfA COMMISSION • 2052t"2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Januarr t t, 20tt Notary Public -

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Stateof ~ ) ~:ss. County oY~A- )

before me, ~ e ~ ~ kH ' notary public, personally appeared Esther Lai who proved me n the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person'!) whose namej!>) is/ai'ei"Subscribed to the within instrument a d acknowledged to me that-ffe/she/~ executed the same in ms/her/t!H-authorized capacity(ies-), and that by ~er/~ signature¢) on the instrument the person(~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person<(> acted, executed the mstrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. rf&J··:._. ·:~~:~~:?:.Affi.~:~.:· 1 - C NMTMISSION ti 2052142 u.. RA COSTA COUNTY ~~ '"'F Comm. Exp. January 11, 2018 'Notary Public

13 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of C/4L/Fo!WlA ) : SS. County of "2>Ad.'1rv190fb

On trz.{b~}201lf., before me, ~ . (. · CfDKD M notary public, personally appeared Charlene Lai Hong who proved 'to me on the basis of satisfact?ry eviqence to be the person~ whose name~ is/afe subscribed to the within ~trument and acknowledged to me that ){e/she/~y executed the same in ~/her/tl¢r authorized capacity(ie'S), and that by !ps/her/th¢r signature~ on the instrument the person(!.), or the entity upon behalf of which the personj§) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

E. C. HOKOM 'I 18: ·- COMM. #1950~48. ~ Notary Public ~ • Notary Public-California ] Ill " . SACRAMENTO COUNTY • • MyComm.Exp.Sept.27,~~15

14 Agenda Item Number: 20 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Transportation and Public Works Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Susan Klassen (707) 565-2231 Fourth Title: Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application – US Army Corps of Engineers Lake Sonoma/Yorky Creek Recreational Area Recommended Actions: Adopt a resolution approving the submittal of an application to the US Department of Transportation for a grant to repair and pave 3.5 miles of Hot Springs Road (#10005) for $956,124. Executive Summary: The Staff of the Department of Transportation and Public Works (TPW) continues to evaluate all funding sources available in order to implement the Sonoma County Long Term Road Plan. Staff was advised this fall that the County is eligible to receive grant funding through the Federal Lands Access Program (Program) to assist in this effort. Staff has worked and coordinated with the Federal rangers at the Lake Sonoma/Yorky Creek Recreational Area (Recreational Area) on an application for funding from the Program to improve Hot Springs Road. The rangers have assisted in the preparation of the application to be submitted to the US Department of Transportation. The proposed project has one primary element:

• Repair and apply an asphalt overlay of 3.5 miles of Hot Springs Road

The total project is estimated to be approximately $1,080,000 of which the local share will be 11.47%, or approximately $123,876. Hot Springs Road provides direct access to the Recreational Area from South Foothill Boulevard in the City of Cloverdale (City). The eastern end of the project extends within the City limits, if awarded, a cooperative agreement will be required between the County and City committing the City to their fair share of the local match; the western end of the project falls within the Recreation Area which will require a cooperative agreement with the Army Corp of Engineers committing their fair share of the local match. Both entities have expressed support for this application.

The application must be submitted to the US Department of Transportation by January 31, 2015. Staff will be advised of whether the County is included in the short list of candidate projects in March 2015. The funding for approved projects will become available in 2017 and each succeeding year.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Prior Board Actions: None. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 3: Invest in the Future This project would invest in the future by replacing aging infrastructure. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): No current fiscal year impact. If awarded the project estimated at $1,080,000 would be budgeted in the appropriate fiscal period. Match funding would come from annual Board allocation for pavement preservation and from the City of Cloverdale for the portion of the road within city limits.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None. Attachments: Resolution; Map Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None.

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board Of Supervisors of Sonoma County, California Approving the Submittal of an Application to the US Department of Transportation for a Grant to Repair and Pave Hot Springs Road (#10005).

Whereas, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of this local jurisdiction in California with the authority to regulate the activities of this County; and

Whereas, the County is submitting a grant application to the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration through the California Federal Lands Access Program; and

Whereas, the County has coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers at the Lake Sonoma/Yorky Creek Recreational area located near the City of Cloverdale in Sonoma County the location of a major recreational public lake; and

Whereas, the Lake Sonoma/Yorky Creek Recreational area has a single access point from Hot Springs Road which connects to the City of Cloverdale and the US 101 freeway; and

Whereas, Hot Springs Road is a County maintained facility; and

Whereas, the County submits this application for $1,080,000 ($956,124 Federal & $123,876 local) to reconstruct Hot Springs Road in a comprehensive manner to provide safe and secure access to this Federal recreation area; and

Whereas, by Resolution No. ______, this Board authorizes submission of this grant application and furthermore, commits to provide the local match for upon award of this grant; and

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the submission of this grant application to the USD Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration in accordance with the requirements of the California Federal Land Access Program.

Resolution # Date: Page 2

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Location Map Repair and Overlay of Hot Springs Road

Cloverdale

US Hwy 101

0.38 Mile Section of Hot Springs Road (City of Cloverdale)

Yorty Creek Recreation Area 2.53 Mile Section of Hot Springs Road (unincorporated)

a o m n o S e k a L

Cloverdale Map Extent

Healdsburg

Windsor

0 0.5 1 Miles Transportation & Public Works, County of Sonoma N January, 2015 Agenda Item Number: 21 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Transportation and Public Works Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Susan Klassen (707) 565-2231 Second Title: Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application – US Coast Guard Training Facility Recommended Actions: Adopt a resolution approving the submittal of an application to the US Department of Transportation for a grant to rehabilitate and pave 1.69 miles of Tomales Road (#5803) and 7.17 miles of Spring Hill Road (#5705B), as well as analysis of the Tomales Road Bridge over Stemple Creek (20C0116) for $4,127,800. Executive Summary: The Staff of the Department of Transportation and Public Works (TPW) continues to evaluate all funding sources available in order to implement the Sonoma County Long Term Road Plan. Staff was advised this fall that the County is eligible to receive grant funding through the Federal Lands Access Program (Program) to assist in this effort. This application was prepared in coordination with the Commander of the US Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma located on Tomales Road. The proposed project has three elements:

• Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) and paving of 1.69 miles of Tomales Road • Base repair and bonded wearing course or overlay of 7.17 miles of Spring Hill Road • Analysis and design of rehabilitation/retrofit of the Tomales Road Bridge over Stemple Creek (20C0116)

The total project is estimated to be approximately $4,662,600 of which the local share will be 11.47%, or approximately $534,800. Both Tomales Road and Spring Hill Road provide direct access to the Coast Guard facility. Both roads are in need of rehabilitation, particularly Spring Hill Road #5705B. While Tomales #5803 is in better shape, the timing is very good to preserve the road before significant deterioration occurs. Storm drainage work will be included such as pipe replacement and redefinition of roadside swales. Also, a portion of the requested funds will be allocated to perform an analysis of the bridge over Stemple Creek. There are a number of structural elements that may require attention.

The application must be submitted to the US Department of Transportation by January 31, 2015. Staff

Revision No. 20140617-1 will be advised of whether the County is included in the short list of candidate projects in March 2015. The funded projects will be announced in June 2015. According to the program materials, project funds will become available in 2017 and each succeeding year. Prior Board Actions: No prior board actions. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 3: Invest in the Future This project would invest in the future by replacing aging infrastructure. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): No current fiscal year impact. If awarded the project estimated at $4,662,600 would be budgeted in the appropriate fiscal period. Match funding would come from annual Board allocation for pavement preservation.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None. Attachments: Resolution; Map Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None.

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution of the Board Of Supervisors of Sonoma County, California Approving the Submittal of an Application to the US Department of Transportation for a Grant to Rehabilitate and Pave Tomales Road (#5803) and Spring Hill Road (#5705B).

Whereas, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of this local jurisdiction in California with the authority to regulate the activities of this County; and

Whereas, the County is submitting a grant application to the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration through the California Federal Lands Access Program; and

Whereas, the County has coordinated with the US Coast Guard commander at the US Coast Guard Training Center – Petaluma, a critical facility for national security; and

Whereas, the US Coast Guard facility is located on Tomales Road (#5803) and Spring Hill Road (#5705B), both maintained by Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works; and

Whereas, Tomales Road and Spring Hill Road are the only access to this critical Federal facility; and

Whereas, the County submits this application to reconstruct Tomales Road and Spring Hill Road in a comprehensive manner to provide safe and secure access to this US Coast Guard facility; and

Whereas, by Resolution No. ______, this Board authorizes submission of this grant application and furthermore, commits to provide the local match for upon award of this grant; and

Resolution # Date: Page 2

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain:

So Ordered.

Location Map Tomales Road and Spring Hill Road

d R r E Railroad Ave la b e o v O R A d ld oa R lr e i d a w R o od W H Rd Hill Petaluma wy d R

m a h c e

M V

a US Hwy 101

JewettRd

l l Pep e per Rd y S t F o

o n y r

d P o R in d t R d

i n

Tomales Rd Liberty Rd Skillman Ln Bo de US Coast Guard ga A Training Center ve

Sp r in g H ill Rd

Chile Santa no Rd y Rosa Valle Sebastopol Rohnert Park Cotati

t Sonoma S D Map Extent Petaluma

0 1 2 Miles Transportation & Public Works, County of Sonoma N January, 2015 Agenda Item Number: 22 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Transportation and Public Works Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Susan Klassen (707) 565-2231 Fourth Title: Design Engineering and Landscape Architecture Services for Highway 101 at Airport Blvd Interchange Recommended Actions: Approve and authorize the Chair to sign an agreement with BKF Engineers, Inc. for the Highway 101 at Airport Blvd Landscape Project (G14001) for an amount not to exceed $384,551.00, which includes a 10% contingency, with a term ending 24 months from date of execution. Executive Summary: The staff of the Department of Transportation and Public Works (TPW) is requesting that the Board approve and authorize the Chair to sign an agreement with BKF Engineers, Inc. (BKF), to provide design engineering and landscape architecture services for the Airport Blvd Landscape Project.

Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. M30210-05 between the Sonoma County Transportation Authority and Sonoma County provided $1,264,000.00 of Measure M – Local Streets Projects funds to design and construct landscape improvements at the Highway 101 at Airport Blvd interchange area following completion of the new interchange and sound walls project. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement M30210- 05 split the Airport Blvd interchange into two projects; Phase IV is the new interchange and sound walls project and Phase IVA is the follow-up landscaping project.

In order to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction of the landscape improvements within the state right-of-way, the County needs to provide plans and specifications that are in an acceptable Caltrans format. Landscape improvements will be designed to meet current Caltrans drought resistant requirements. BKF will provide engineering and landscape design services for the project. The design and landscape services include providing plan detail sheets for irrigation and planting layout and detail sheets for irrigation, plantings, temporary water pollution control, grading, utilities, electrical, signing, traffic control, quantities, and erosion control. Special provisions and specifications will also be provided by BKF. TPW staff will provide engineering design work and contract administration services to prepare the bid package for advertising the construction contract after

Revision No. 20131002-1 receiving plans, specifications, and special provisions from the consultant. County staff will also prepare environmental documents, obtain permits, perform utility relocation coordination, and provide construction inspection and administration services. BKF will also provide supplemental landscape construction services on an as needed basis.

BKF was selected as the consultant for this project following an extensive selection process. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on October 5, 2014 and proposals were due on November 3, 2014. Selection interviews were conducted on November 21, 2014. The Department advertised the RFP in a newspaper of general circulation and sent e-mail notices regarding the RFP to various local and Northern California engineering and landscape architecture firms. The project was also listed on the Purchasing Department’s RFP posting website. Proposals were evaluated and ranked based on each consultant’s response to the following criteria: experience, project team and key staff, technical ability, cost, and relevant Caltrans landscape project experience. Five consulting firm teams responded with proposals as listed below:

Consulting Firm Proposal Amount Location

BKF Engineers, Inc. $349,593 Santa Rosa, CA Designit GREEN, LLC $152,690 Ventura, CA Firma Design Group, Inc. $364,425 Petaluma, CA Stantec Architecture, Inc. $412,389 Petaluma, CA Haygood & Associates $348,752 Albany, CA

Three consulting teams, Haygood & Associates, BKF Engineers, Inc., and Stantec Architecture, Inc., provided the most complete and responsive proposals and were selected to be interviewed. DesignitGreen and Firma Design Group did not have sufficient Caltrans project delivery experience to meet the RFP requirements. The selection committee included three senior engineers from TPW, one environmental specialist from PRMD, and one senior landscape specialist from Caltrans. Interviews were conducted and the three consulting firms were ranked according to evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. BKF Engineers was selected because of its team experience, history of providing similar Caltrans landscaping projects, and understanding of Caltrans encroachment process for designing and constructing landscape projects within the state right-of-way. The BKF proposal cost was in-line with the other proposers. BKF is eligible for local preference pursuant to Sonoma County purchasing policies and received preference points in the scoring system that developed the rankings. It should be noted that all three firms were capable of providing the services requested in the RFP.

The value of this agreement is $384,551.00. The term of the agreement is 24 months. The implementation of the project will occur over the next six fiscal years, including three years of plant establishment reporting and monitoring following the end of construction. The necessary appropriations will be included in the preparation of the annual Roads Division budget.

At a future date, TPW will bring a Freeway Maintenance Agreement and a cooperative funding agreement with Caltrans to the Board that will need to be executed prior to Caltrans issuing an encroachment permit for the construction work. TPW staff has negotiated with Caltrans and Caltrans staff has informally agreed to accept long term maintenance responsibilities, following the plant

Revision No. 20131002-1 establishment period for the landscape improvements within the Highway 101 right-of-way area, except for a narrow strip immediately adjacent to Airport Blvd. The future cooperative funding agreement between Caltrans and the County will show the County being 100% responsible for the cost of the landscaping project, except that Caltrans will provide some of the encroachment permit processing effort prior to construction at no cost. Caltrans’ construction inspection costs related to the encroachment permit will be reimbursed by the County.

Construction is anticipated to take place during the late summer and fall of 2016 barring unforeseen schedule impacts. Currently, there is a state-wide moratorium, issued by the governor, on constructing landscaping projects within the state right-of-way due to existing drought conditions. Prior Board Actions: 6/10/14 Approved Amendment No. 4 to Cooperative Agreement No. M30210-05 between Sonoma County Transportation Authority and Sonoma County to provide Measure M funds in the amount of $1,624,000 for the Airport Blvd Landscape Project. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 3: Invest in the Future The Measure M program invests millions of dollars into local infrastructure improvements. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 250,000 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ 250,000 $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 250,000 Total Sources $ 250,000 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Current year costs reflect preliminary work on project design. The total value of the project is $1,264,000. Estimated breakdown of expenditures: FY 2013-14 - $24,000 FY 2014-2015: $250,000; FY 2015-16: $350,000; FY 2016-2017: $435,000; FY 2017-18: $75,000; FY 2018-19: $70,000; FY 2019-20: $60,000. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Revision No. 20131002-1 Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None. Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Agreement with BKF Engineers, Inc.

Revision No. 20131002-1 Agenda Item Number: 23 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board of Supervisors Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Board of Supervisors (707) 565-2241 Title: Minutes of January 27, 2015 Recommended Actions: Approval. Executive Summary: Approval of Minutes: (A) Minutes of the Meeting of January 27, 2015 for the following: Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Community Development Commission, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Occidental County Sanitation District, Russian River County Sanitation District, Sonoma County Water Agency, South Park County Sanitation District and Board of Supervisors; and (B) Minutes of the Meeting of January 27, 2015 of the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District.

Prior Board Actions: None. Strategic Plan Alignment Not Applicable

Revision No. 20121026-1 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ County General Fund $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): N/A

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None Attachments: Minutes Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None

Revision No. 20121026-1

ACTION SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SONOMA COUNTY 575 ADMINISTRATION DRIVE, ROOM 102A SANTA ROSA, CA 95403

TUESDAY JANUARY 13, 2015 8:30 A.M.

This is a simultaneous meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Board of Commissioners of the Community Development Commission, the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, the Board of Directors of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, and as the governing board of all special districts having business on the agenda to be heard this date.

The Board welcomes you to attend its meetings which are regularly scheduled each Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. Your interest is encouraged and appreciated.

APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar includes routine financial and administrative actions, are usually approved by a single majority vote. There will be no discussion on these items prior to voting on the motion unless Board Members or the public request specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.

PUBLIC COMMENT Any member of the audience desiring to address the Board on a matter on the agenda: Please walk to the podium and after receiving recognition from the Chair, please state your name and make your comments. Closed session items may be added prior to the Board adjourning to closed session. In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, please be brief and limit your comments to the subject under discussion. Each person is usually granted 3 minutes to speak; time limitations are at the discretion of the Chair. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act, Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.

January 13, 2015

8:30 A.M. CALL TO ORDER

8:30 A.M. Chair Gorin called the meeting to order.

Supervisors Present: Susan Gorin, David Rabbitt, Shirlee Zane, James Gore, Efren Carrillo

Staff Present: Veronica A. Ferguson, County Administrator and Bruce Goldstein, County Counsel

Chair Gorin presiding.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

I. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Items may be added or withdrawn from the agenda consistent with State law)

Closed Session Item 34, Julia Donoho vs. County of Sonoma, has been removed from the agenda.

II. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

Supervisor Rabbitt attended a Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting on January 12, 2015. He announced that the Golden Gate Bridge movable, medium barrier installation project was successful, led by many local companies.

Supervisor Carrillo attended the Upper Russian River Water manager's meeting in Cloverdale on January 8, 2015. He thanked those who helped volunteer for a Coastal Clean-up in Jenner last Saturday morning, January 10, 2015. He announced there will be a meeting on January 14, 2015, 3 p.m. at Via Esperanza, Cook Middle School, on the upstream investments initiative.

Supervisor Zane attended the Sonoma County Museum Board meeting. She participated in a National Association of Counties Health Care steering committee conference call, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting on January 12, 2015. She will make a presentation on the behavioral health mobile support team and crisis assessment prevention and education team (CAPE) to the family resource center in Rohnert Park this week, and she will hold a townhall meeting on January 22, 2015 at the Rohnert Park community center 2-4 p.m. about upstream investments and health action.

Supervisor Gore announced he will attend an Ortiz Family Plaza Community meeting about affordable housing community concerns in Larkfield; Geyserville Fire department event celebrating its 100th year will occur on January 15, 2015; Sonoma County Winegrape commission dollars and cents seminar. He attended the Upper River Water Management meeting which included a discussion about Lake Mendocino water levels and issues surrounding possibly raising the levy in the future.

January 13, 2015

BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS (Continued)

Supervisor Gorin attended meetings for the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, and Sonoma Clean Power, her last meeting as Chair of that group. She announced there will be a public planning meeting on January 14, 2015 at the Sonoma Valley Boys and Girls Club to update the Maxwell Farms regional park plan, with the new Sonoma Valley community pool to be located across from the park.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 24)

PRESENTATIONS/GOLD RESOLUTIONS (Items 1 through 5)

PRESENTATIONS AT THE BOARD MEETING

1. Adopt a Gold Resolution proclaiming January 6, 2015 through February 12, 2015 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Sonoma County. (District Attorney, Human Resources, Health Services, Human Services, Probation Department, Sheriff’s Office) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0011

2. Adopt a Gold Resolution declaring the month of January 2015 as eligibility worker and employment and training specialist recognition month. (Human and Health Services) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0012

PRESENTATIONS AT A DIFFERENT DATE

3. Adopt a Gold Resolution declaring January 25 through 31, 2015 as Sonoma County School Choice Week. (First District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0013

4. Adopt a Gold Resolution honoring the Geyserville Fire Department on its 100th Anniversary. (Fourth District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0014

5. Adopt a Gold Resolution commending Dave Franceschi for 40 years of service to the Forestville Fire Protection District. (Fifth District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0015

January 13, 2015

CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

6. Adoption of the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act Rules - Adopt an Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Establishing an Informal Bidding Process for Certain Public Projects." (Second Reading - Ready for Adoption) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Ordinance 6094

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

7. Approve the Water Agency State and Federal Legislative Priorities for 2015 and 2016. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY OCCIDENTAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SOUTH PARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo) AND SONOMA VALLEY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Carrillo, D. Cook)

8. Authorize the Chair to execute the first amended agreement with Bartle Wells Associates for preparation of a sanitary sewer system use study, increasing the amount by $25,000, expanding the scope of work to include additional analysis and recommendations, and extending the agreement term by one year for a new not-to-exceed agreement total of $154,330 and end date of December 31, 2015. (2/3 vote required) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Board Action: Approved as Recommended AYES: Susan Gorin, Efren Carrillo ABSENT: Mayor Cook

January 13, 2015

CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY OCCIDENTAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SOUTH PARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo) AND SONOMA VALLEY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Carrillo, D. Cook)

9. Authorize the Chair to execute an agreement with Rich Timm, doing business as EYEP Solutions, to provide Enterasys computer system support for the amount of $60,000, agreement terminates on June 30, 2016. (2/3 vote required) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Board Action: Approved as Recommended AYES: Susan Gorin, Efren Carrillo ABSENT: Mayor Cook

SONOMA VALLEY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (Directors: Gorin, Carrillo, D. Cook)

10. Agua Caliente Creek Sewer Crossing Replacement Project - (A) Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement for acquisition of real property rights with Eleanor M. Marino for $116,000 and contract construction work estimated at $25,000, and an agreement for acquisition of real property rights with Maryann Walsh for $22,500 for the Agua Caliente Creek Sewer Crossing Project. (B) Authorize the General Manager to execute any other documents necessary in order to close the transactions. (2/3 vote required) (First District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Board Action: Approved as Recommended AYES: Susan Gorin, Efren Carrillo ABSENT: Mayor Cook

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

11. Approve Advertising Program grant awards and authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract with the following entity for advertising and promotions activities for Fiscal Year 2014-15: Sonoma Community Center, $2,000. (First District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

January 13, 2015

CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

12. Authorize the Chair to execute an amendment to the Personal Services Agreement with Ben Stone as Executive Director, Economic Development Board, commencing on December 9, 2014 through October 9, 2016. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

13. Adopt a 30 day extension of the Resolution proclaiming a local emergency due to Winter Storm Damage. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolution 15-0016

HEALTH SERVICES

14. Authorize the Director of Health Services to execute an agreement with Harder+Company Community Research to conduct Mental Health Services Act evaluation activities for the period January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018, in an amount not-to-exceed $204,000. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

15. Authorize the Director of Health Services to execute an agreement with Megan Alexander for animal behavior evaluation and training services for Sonoma County Animal Services for the period of January 13, 2015 through June 30, 2016 in an amount not-to-exceed $44,400. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

16. Miscellaneous Classification and Compensation Changes - (A) Approve a Concurrent Resolution amending the Salary Resolution No. 95-0926, Appendix A - Salary Tables, to reflect the re-titling of the job classification of Mental Health Medical Director to Behavioral Health Medical Director; amending the salary of the Animal Care and Control Director; and re-titling the job classification of Economic Development Coordinator to Executive Director, Economic Development Board and amending its salary; effective January 13, 2015. (B) Approve a Concurrent Resolution amending the Memorandum of

January 13, 2015

CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) Item #16 Continued

Understanding between the County and International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers - Local 39, Appendix A - Local 39 Salary Tables, to reflect the re- titling of the job classification of Environmental Compliance Inspector to Water Agency Environmental Compliance Inspector; and to establish the new job classification and salary of Water Agency Environmental Compliance Technician; effective January 20, 2015. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE Approved by Resolutions 15-0017 and 15-0018

HUMAN SERVICES

17. CalWORKs Information Network (CalWIN) Agreements Approval - (A) Authorize the Chair to execute the CalWIN Maintenance and Operations Agreement with HP Enterprise Services, LLC for CalWORKs Information Network (CalWIN) Development, Implementation, Maintenance and Operation Services for the 18 CalWIN Counties for an amount not-to-exceed $7,127,470; effective February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2020. (B) Authorize the Director of Human Services to execute the third Amendment to an agreement with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) for the continued provision of Welfare Client Data Systems management services, for the period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, in the amount of $65,166 (total revised contract amount of $190,440). Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

18. Authorize the Chair to execute an engineering design contract with Moffatt & Nichol Consulting Engineers for the design of the replacement Bridge on River Road over Gill Creek (C11002) in an amount not-to-exceed $647,410 with a term ending December 31, 2018. (Fourth District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

MISCELLANEOUS

19. Approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 6, 2015 for the following: Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Community Development Commission, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Occidental County Sanitation District, Russian River County Sanitation District, South Park County Sanitation District, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Board of Supervisors; and Approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 6, 2015 for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

January 13, 2015

CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS (Items 20 through 24)

20. First 5 Sonoma County Commission Reappointments - (A) Reappoint Juan Hernandez and Dr. Jeff Miller to the First 5 Sonoma County Commission for a three-year term beginning on December 1, 2014 and ending on November 30, 2017. (Health Services) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

21. Approve the appointment of Joe Tambe to the Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association Board, position number 9, for a three-year term beginning on January 13, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2017. (Countywide) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

22. Approve the appointment of Tamara Davis to the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District for a four-year term beginning on January 13, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2018. (Countywide) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

23. Approve the appointment of Richard Klein to the Art Advisory Committee for a two-year term beginning on January 13, 2015 and ending on January 13, 2017. (First District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

24. Approve the appointment of Margaret Loftus to the Advisory Council to Area Agency on Aging for a two-year term beginning on January 13, 2015 and ending on January 13, 2017. (First District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

January 13, 2015

IV. REGULAR CALENDAR (Items 25 through 30)

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

25. Recognition of the 2014 Combined Fund Drive.

Presenters: Grant Davis, Water Agency Executive Director Michael Gossman, Water Agency, Assistant Director

Informational Item Only.

The Board Recessed: 9:48 a.m. The Board Reconvened: 10:03 a.m.

HUMAN SERVICES

26. Receive a Presentation on the proposal, and Authorize the Director of Human Services to execute an agreement with the Community Foundation of Sonoma County for a grant of $35,000 awarded to support Sonoma County’s advance care planning community initiative, "My Care, My Plan - Speak Up Sonoma County," for the period of January 15, 2015 through January 21, 2016.

Presenters: Diane Kaljian, Human Services Director - Adult & Aging Division Brian Vaughn, Health Services, Director of Health Policy, Planning and Evaluation

Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (Directors: Gorin, Rabbitt, Zane, Gore, Carrillo)

27. Lichau Creek Flood Mitigation Modeling and Feasibility Study - Authorize the Chair to execute an agreement with Prunuske Chatham, Inc., to provide engineering services related to Lichau Creek flood mitigation and modeling for the amount of $195,165; agreement terminates on December 31, 2015.

Presenters: Jon Nichaus, Water Agency, Stream maintenance coordinator David Royall, Water Agency, Engineering Technician.

Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

January 13, 2015

REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued)

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

28. Sonoma County 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform and Report by State Advocates - (A) Approve the Sonoma County 2015 State and Federal Legislative Platform to be used by County staff, legislative advocates, and the legislative delegation in efforts to seek policy support and acquire federal and state resources for County priorities. (B) Receive a state legislative end of session report from the County’s state legislative advocates, Paul Yoder and Karen Lange, of Peterson Consulting, Inc., and Shaw, Yoder, and Antwih.

Presenters: Rebecca Wachsberg, Interim Deputy County Administrator for Community and Government Affairs Paul Yoder, Shaw, Yoder, and Antwih Karen Lange, Peterson Consulting.

Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

29. Pursuant to Government Code Section §7522.56 approve the appointment of Alex Sebastian as a Senior Engineer Retiree Extra-Help, in order to fill a critically needed position within 180 days of his retirement, with an appointment date as early as January 14, 2015. Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

30. Approve a fee waiver in the amount of $155.65 in building permit fees for the Rancho Adobe Fire District incurred in the replacement of HVAC. (Second District) Board Action: Approved as Recommended UNANIMOUS VOTE

The Board adjourned to closed session: 12:11 p.m.

January 13, 2015

V. CLOSED SESSION CALENDAR (Items 31 through 37)

3:37 P.M. County Counsel Goldstein reported on Closed Session Items #31 - 37.

31. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Public Employment - Recruitment for Human Resources Director. (Gov’t. Code Section 54957(b)(1)).

Direction Given to Counsel and Staff.

32. The Board of Commissioners of the Community Development Commission will consider the following in closed session: Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Community Development Commission Executive Director (Gov’t. Code Section 54957(b)(1)).

Direction Given to Counsel and Staff.

33. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation - Mario Jimenez v. County of Sonoma/Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, ADJ8625083. (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)).

By a vote of 5 to 0, the Board authorized settlement of the workers' compensation claim of Mario Jimenez in the amount of $66,607, less credit for payments made to date, with retained right to future medical treatment as specified and with direction to the Risk Manager to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the settlement

34. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation - Julia Donoho v. County of Sonoma et.al., SCV 256177 (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)).

Withdrawn and Continued to a Future Date.

35. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation - Renewed Efforts of Neighbors Against Landfill Expansion ("RENALE") an unincorporated association vs. County of Sonoma, a political subdivision of the State of California; Sonoma Compost Company, a corporation; Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, a public agency, U.S. District Court-Northern District Case No.: 3:14-cv-03804 TEH. (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)).

Direction Given to Counsel and Staff.

36. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator, 3631 N. Laughlin Road at the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Negotiators - For Lessor: County of Sonoma - Jon Stout, Airport Manager, For Lessee: Pacific Coast Air Museum - Lynn Hunt, President of the Board; Under negotiation: Price and terms of potential lease of property. (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.8).

Direction Given to County Property Negotiator, Jon Stout.

37. The Board of Supervisors will consider the following in closed session: Potential initiation of litigation - Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (Gov’t. Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)).

Direction Given to Counsel and Staff.

January 13, 2015

VI. REGULAR AFTERNOON CALENDAR (Items 38 through 41)

2:28 P.M. RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION

Supervisors Present: Susan Gorin, David Rabbitt, Shirlee Zane, James Gore, Efren Carrillo

Staff Present: Veronica Ferguson, County Administrator and Bruce Goldstein, County Counsel

38. Report on Closed Session.

2:28 P.M. Chair Gorin postponed the reading of Closed Session until after Item #40.

3:37 P.M. County Counsel Goldstein reported on Closed Session Items #31 - 37. See Item V.

39. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA (Comments are restricted to matters within the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board will hear public comments at this time for up to thirty minutes. Please be brief and limit your comments to three minutes. Any additional public comments will be heard at the conclusion of the meeting. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act, Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.)

2:29 P.M. Public Comment Opened.

Public Speakers: Rev. Norman Cram Elizabeth Neylon “Cactus” Pete Tchernoff Rachel Lamb Mary Morrison Richard Hannon Maria Stubbert Chris Githens John Jenkel Colleen Fernald Myrna Spiegler

3:07 P.M. Public Comment Closed

40. Permit and Resource Management Department: Review and possible action on the following: a) Acts and Determinations of Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Adjustments b) Acts and Determinations of Project Review and Advisory Committee c) Acts and Determinations of Design Review Committee d) Acts and Determinations of Landmarks Commission e) Administrative Determinations of the Director of Permit and Resource Management (All materials related to these actions and determinations can be reviewed at: http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/b-c/index.htm) Board Action: Accept Acts and Determinations UNANIMOUS VOTE

January 13, 2015

41. ADJOURNMENTS

3:40 P.M. The Board adjourned the meeting in the memory of JoAnne Becker Conner, Louie Ricci, and Jeryl Dean Vaught. The meeting was adjourned to January 27, 2015, 8:30 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Roxanne Epstein, Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board

Agenda Item Number: 24 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Prior Board Actions: Mr. Meraz is an incumbent commissioner. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 25 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Prior Board Actions: Mr. Kerosky is an incumbent commissioner. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: None. Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 26 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Revision No. 20140617-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 Agenda Item Number: 27 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403

To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board of Supervisors Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor Susan Gorin, Chair - 565-2241 Countywide Title: Reappointment Recommended Actions: Reappoint Paul Kelley to the North Coast Railroad Authority Board for a two-year term through April 16, 2016.

Executive Summary:

Prior Board Actions:

Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 4: Civic Services and Engagement

Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ County General Fund $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $

Revision No. 20121026-1 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments:

Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20121026-1 Agenda Item Number: 28 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Department of Health Services, Human Services Department Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Rita Scardaci, 565-4702; Jerry Dunn, 565-5802 Countywide Title: Healthy Aging Update Recommended Actions: Accept an update on the National Leadership Academy for the Public’s Health Sonoma County Healthy Aging initiative, including progress on developing an Aging Together Sonoma County framework for action. Executive Summary: National Leadership Academy for the Public’s Health In January 2014 the Department of Health Services assembled a cross-sector team of local leaders to apply for participation in a one-year National Leadership Academy for the Public’s Health (NLAPH), funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NLAPH is a national program focused on improving the health of communities by training multi-sector leadership teams through collaborative leadership development. The Sonoma County Healthy Aging Collaborative was one of 29 community health projects selected from across the United States to participate. The team assembled to lead this work includes (in alphabetical order): Ellen Bauer, Sonoma County Public Health Division Director; Oscar Chavez, Assistant Director of Sonoma County Human Services; Diane Kaljian, Sonoma County Adult and Aging Services Division Director; Mary Maddux-Gonzalez, Chief Medical Officer of Redwood Community Health; Marrianne McBride, President and CEO of Council on Aging; and Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County Third District Supervisor. Over the past year, the NLAPH team was joined by interested community members and organizational partners to review and synthesize key findings from recent research on seniors and issues related to aging in Sonoma County. Through a series of “community conversations” across Sonoma County last fall, the group listened and learned about the challenges and opportunities for healthy aging in Sonoma County. The group completed its NLAPH project by developing a framework for action that will be used to guide implementation planning and the launch of a cross-sector Aging Together Sonoma County

Revision No. 20140617-1 Page 1 of 4 initiative in 2015.

Why Healthy Aging? As the population of Sonoma County continues to age, seniors are presented with new challenges and opportunities to be physically, psychologically and financially healthy, active, and connected to others. Some findings of concern include: - Sonoma County seniors are living longer. The 2013 update of the American Community Survey indicates the total population of Sonoma County is 495,025, of which 23% (111,430) are aged 60 and older, representing a 2% increase over two years ago. - 29% of Sonoma County seniors are age 75 and older. Females aged 60 and older outnumber males (55% to 45%). - Sonoma County is currently home to 10,412 seniors aged 85 and older. This number is expected to more than double (237%) by 2050. - By 2020, ethnic groups other than White will represent 20% of the total senior population in Sonoma County and Hispanics/Latinos will continue to be the largest group at 10% of the senior population. - 41% of older adults in Sonoma County (ages 60 and above) do not have enough income to meet basic needs. Although six percent of seniors live below the federal poverty line, the Elder Economic Security Index for Sonoma County shows that 40% of seniors do not have enough income to meet their basic needs. - Lack of safe, affordable, and accessible housing and transportation make it very difficult many older adults to remain independent and “age in place.” - The prevalence of chronic disease is rapidly increasing, even though chronic conditions are preventable through healthy living strategies. - Many seniors experience a lack of mental and social stimulation after leaving the workforce, placing them at risk for depression and cognitive decline. - Fragmented health and community systems leave some older adults vulnerable to neglect and isolation. The NLAPH team recognized these challenges and created a platform to focus the community’s attention on actions to take to prepare for these changes in Sonoma County. The overarching goal is that all individuals and families, including older adults, have the opportunity to be connected to community life, have access to resources and support they need to thrive and achieve their life potential. The Aging Together Sonoma County action plan will be a vehicle to help align public and private investments with shared goals, indicators and priority strategies. Aging Together Sonoma County – Framework for Action Through its research and community input, the NLAPH team and community participants identified seven (7) goals that most contribute to healthy aging across the lifespan: - Goal 1: Community Connectedness: Older adults are connected to their communities and participate in community life - Goal 2: Transportation: Every older adult is able to access and afford transportation to access resources - Goal 3: Varied Housing Options: Older adults have access to affordable, safe and healthy housing

Revision No. 20140617-1 Page 2 of 4 - Goal 4: Healthy Living: Older adults have the resources and support to engage in healthy living - Goal 5: Lifelong Learning: Older adults have access to education and training and are adequately prepared for the challenges of the future - Goal 6: Employment and Financial Security: Older adults, and their families, have access to economic resources, services and support to live independently - Goal 7: Health and Community-Based Services: Ensure that older adults have access to the continuum of health and community-based services that they need to achieve optimal health and well-being These goals align with the goals of Health Action and Upstream Investments and contribute to the shared vision of being the healthiest county in California. Achieving these goals will require building upon the significant cross-sector coordination and collaboration already underway in Sonoma County. Aligning with Health Action, the Aging Together initiative will seek ways to stimulate and support broad community participation (by individuals, businesses, health care providers, educators, local governments, community organizations, and others), align resources for effective action, and target resources to areas of greatest need. Building on the collective impact approach adopted by Health Action and Upstream Investments, the Human Services Department will provide the “backbone support” needed to lead implementation of the Aging Together framework for action. Human Services will assign Aging Together work to a dedicated staff member. The Human Services Department is currently exploring budget capacity to fund limited grants to community agencies in FY 15-16 for demonstration projects related to Aging Together Sonoma County. The Department of Health Services will remain an active, committed partner in this collaborative work and will continue to provide staff support as available. The NLAPH team has committed to continue its leadership into 2015 and to develop a structure and implementation plan to move this work forward, including a preliminary budget and financing strategy. The Departments will return to your Board with an update on plans to launch the Aging Together Sonoma County initiative in 2015. Prior Board Actions: None Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community Promotes healthy aging within the community, enabling seniors to live safely and independently at home. The community benefits from older adults’ knowledge, experience, and participation.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Page 3 of 4 Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 0 County General Fund $ 0 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ 0 State/Federal $ 0 $ Fees/Other $ 0 $ Use of Fund Balance $ 0 $ Contingencies $ 0 $ $ Total Expenditure $ 0 Total Sources $ 0 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: None Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Aging Together Sonoma County Framework for Action

Revision No. 20140617-1 Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item Number: 29 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Approve contract with Kwan Henmi Architects for preparation of construction documents, and bid phase services, in the amount not to exceed $398,000, from February 1 – June 30, 2015 Executive Summary: Background

On November 15, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 11-0619, authorizing the sale of the Government Center Fleet and Materials Lab building and adjacent motor pool site area to the State of California for the new Santa Rosa courthouse project. The building is approximately 24,870 sq. feet located on 2.7 acres of parking, materials storage and infrastructure. The County must vacate the facility occupied by Fleet Light Operations, Fleet Administration and the Transportation and Public Works (TPW) Materials Lab by April 30, 2016 per the agreement with the State in order for the State’s project to move forward. Delay in vacating the facility beyond the State’s deadline may jeopardize the State’s issuance of public project construction finance bonds for new courthouse project.

Replacement Facility

Recognizing that time was of the essence, Staff proceeded in early 2011 to identify potentially viable options for the relocation of the impacted operations. The 2010 Fleet Operations Business Plan indicated a consolidated Light and Heavy Equipment Program and Fleet Administration Facility to be the most effective long term business solution, while the Comprehensive County Facility Plan (CCFP) suggested that the facility would best be located outside of the County Government Center to allow the

Revision No. 20140617-1 County to leverage the value of the land for relocation of other, appropriate services to the County Government Center. The County did not own property outside of the County Government Center suitable for the facility and the schedule at the time for vacating the existing facility did not provide sufficient time to locate, purchase and improve property using standard County land procurement and design-bid-build construction processes.

Staff has explored a variety of options, including Vendor Provided Services and an Off-Site Developer Delivered Facility. It was determined that a site at the County Government Center to accommodate a Light Fleet and Materials Lab facility, with potential to expand the facility to include Heavy Fleet operations at a later date, would best meet the operational needs of the County. Three potential locations at the County Government Center were analyzed for feasibility, with a partially vacant property north of the Main Adult Detention Facility on the north side of Russell Avenue determined to be the most appropriate option.

This option meets the requirement to vacate the existing Fleet site, maintains a status-quo facility for Light Fleet Operations and Materials Lab at the County Center, removes these operations from the center of the campus yet provides access from Bicentennial Drive. This option also allows future expansion for Heavy Fleet while avoiding certain additional staffing cost impacts to Sheriff’s Office and Fleet Operations budgets associated with an off-campus repair facility.

Project Description

The project is proposed to be constructed on County-owned vacant parcels (2.7 acres) bounded by Russell Avenue on the south, Highway 101 on the west and Bicentennial on the north. It will be accessed from Russell Avenue. The building will be designed to accommodate a future addition for Heavy Fleet on the adjacent two parcels to the east (currently older residences used by Social Advocates for Youth – SAY - through 2015 and an abandoned house). The building will be approximately 21,900sf in size, with approximately 138 parking spaces provided on site. Note that a separate motor pool for approximately 50-60 vehicles will be retained in the middle of the Government Center. The west and north perimeters of the site will be landscaped, providing a visual screen from Highway 101 and the off- ramp. The project will be designed to achieve LEED Silver certification. Because the County owns all the parcels abutting Russell Avenue at its west end, Staff has applied to the City for City vacation of the west end of Russell Avenue (County will take title to the street parcel, granting utility easements for existing below-road utilities). This will allow more flexibility in Fleet facility site layout and more parking.

Budget and Funding

Total Project costs are estimated to be $9.96 million. $1,228,940 has been previously funded, resulting in an additional funding need of $8,729,232. Additional funding sources proposed include $5,123,570 from fleet property sales proceeds, $100,000 from Fleet Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund (ACO), $800,000 committed by TPW for the materials lab portion of the project, and $2,705,662 from the General Fund (FY 15/16 appropriation), thereby avoiding the need to obtain financing or incur debt services.

Revision No. 20140617-1

PROJECT COSTS Construction and Soft Costs $ 8,771,412 Relocation and FF&E $ 900,383 Motor Pool – Core of Govt Center $ 286,377 TOTAL BUDGET $ 9,958,172

PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES Fleet Property Sales Proceeds $ 5,123,570 Previously Funded (Reloc & FF&E) $ 900,383 Previously Funded (Motor Pool) $ 328,557 Fleet ACO $ 100,000 TPW (Materials Lab) $ 800,000 General Fund (FY15/16 appropriation) $ 2,705,662 TOTAL SOURCES $ 9,958,172

Schedule. The new facility must be completed and the existing facility vacated by April 30, 2016, per the County’s agreement with the State. This necessitates a fast-tracked design and construction schedule (attached). Development of the architectural design and environmental review must begin immediately in order to meet this move-in date. It is requested that the Board approve an architectural Task Order, under an existing Master Services Agreement with Kwan Henmi Architects in the amount of $400,000 for preparation of design development and construction documents, and bid phase services. Kwan Henmi was selected from the architectural firms with whom the County has Master Services Agreements, due to their knowledge of and experience with similar projects. Kwan Henmi has prepared the schematic design documents attached to this Board item which allowed staff to confirm the feasibility of the Russell Avenue site. This project will be delivered by public bid. To meet the project schedule, at the time of CEQA approval, your Board will also be asked to authorize the project be issued for bid, with delegated authority to execute the construction contract to the Director of General Services as long as the lowest responsive and responsible bid is within project budget.

Prior Board Actions: November 15, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 11-0619, authorizing the sale of the Fleet and Material Lab facility and adjacent motor pool site area to the State of California for the new Santa Rosa court house project. CPP FY 13/14 Approved funding for Light Fleet Relocation and FF&E ($900,383) CPP FY 13/14 Approved funding for Motor Pool Relocation ($328,557) June 10, 2014 Approved Master Service Agreement with Kwan Henmi Architects ($500,000) Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 3: Invest in the Future With this project, the Board is investing in the future by developing a new, environmentally responsible facility for Light Fleet operations and TPW Materials Testing Lab. This new Fleet and Materials Lab facility replaces an aging building, and is consistent with the Board’s previous decision to sell the existing

Revision No. 20140617-1 property to facilitate the State’s development of a new Courthouse and related parking at the Government Center. Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 1,228,940 County General Fund $ 2,705,662 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ 8,729,232 State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ 5,123,570 $ Contingencies $ $ Other – $ 2,128,940 Total Expenditure $ 9,958,172 Total Sources $ 9,958,172 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): Note that budget adjustments of $6,023,570 will be done in FY14/15 Quarterly Budget Adjustment. The $2,705,662 General Fund will be a FY 15/16 appropriation.

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): N/A Attachments: Attachment A: Schematic Site, Building, Elevation Plans Attachment B: Project Schedule Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: Task Order 2704-002 for Kwan Henmi Architects in the amount of $398,000.

Revision No. 20140617-1

D 1/12/2015 a

o Ü

a r i M

r D a t s i

u CountyFacility Countyof Sonoma State of California Other

n a e

v h CurrentParcel Owner

A Countyof Sonoma CountyCenter Campus C

s n

a L t i

m a

o i

L r

L n

c S

r e D Row

Ave ino oc nd Me

i r

a r

r s

i M

m e Dr

d Lilli A

M e e y

s u r

D r

A e v y e k d r N o Site

Pool

Motor

e A v a r t u n e V

o D

t a

r n

t o

s i

i s

i s e

m f

d o

r A

y P

e r

A D

l r e

C t

n l o n u e n t y e C

R 101 £ ¤

e d Av Site an Fleet el lev

Facility C

StateFarm Dr

L e r i d c B M Attachment A BIOSWALE, TYP ,,-. · EPAIR-ANEl-REPbAC ~(~ CALIRAfllS~ ENCE ;-TYP ======----~=---- REPAIR AND REPLACE (E ~ CAL TRANS FEN~ "" ..,X.~ PLANTED--BUFFER

22S Millar Ava"LIR, MJ!I Valley. CA 94941 I T 4-i~ '.lB:l 7900 F '115 !ltlll 14Jll www.rha11.com

I ASPHALT, TYP _J

a C

LEGEND L

l o

r PLANTING AREA d

a D l

e S

M BIOSWALE e

s D

7 36" BOXTREE S BREAK AREA W/ TABLES AND CHAIRS

PARKING COUNT PARKING STALL SIZES: • 111 STANDARD STANDARD: 9' X 18' • 10 COMPACT COMPACT: 9' x 16' • 15 EV ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EV): 9' x 18' • 2ADA ACCESSIBLE/ADA PARKING: 9' x 18' 138 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE: 9' x 18'

Rev. Date Name 1 12/22/14 Schematic TRUNCATED DO ES,D Design

= = = = ~ = = = = = IE. = eAVED,mRYW"\ ' \ ~ " ! V"" ACC8''""ADA Ji" a ~~ I PARKING STALLS BIOSWALE, TY\ ACCESSIBLE REPAIR AND REPLACE (B,) CHARGING STATION CALTRANS FENCE,TYR c f c c

PJ.P. CONCRETE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WALKWAY FOR REFERENCE ONLY

Project No: 14005

c c Drawing Title: Landscape RUSSELL AVE 2 CHARGING STATION Site Plan 0.. ZONE, TYP N ~ < "'0 ~ N ~

COMPACT PARKING STALL, TYP Sheet Number: NEW FENCE, TYP ELECTRIC VEHICLE --~ *r MECHANIZED SLIDING -~ 0 10 20 40 PARKING STALL, TYP GATE TO MATCH FENCE L1.00 Printed: 12/22/2014 4:14:52 PM NOTE: If this drawing is not 34in x 22in it has been revised from its original size. Scales noted on drawings and or details are no longer applicable. Copyright 2012 - Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning A2.01 A5.02 D C B A E 1

62'-9" 25'-3" 25'-3" 25'-3" 2 Scale: 1/8" = 1/8" 1'-0" Scale: Level 1 Floor Plan 1 Aluminum Windows08 Aluminum 51 13 Tire Tire Storage 195SF Lab & & Lab Hood Room Compression Lab StorageLab 300SF 330SF 250SF Sieve 662SF Composite MetalComposite07 Panels 42 13 38'-6" 38'-6" Composite MetalComposite07 Panels 42 13 Lab Ext Lab Storage 38'-4" Preformed Insulated Preformed Panel 0741 60 786SF Bollard CMU04 20 00

REF DW 100SF Office W Locker W 295SF SharedBreak 2 290SF A5.11 1 M LockerM 405SF Corridor 325SF 255SF Office 26'-6" AluminumFramed Entrances and Storefront08 41 13 100SF Office Receptionand Waiting 3 354SF 681SF Office Superintendents 258SF 26'-6" 169'-4" M AdminM RR 56SF Janitor 68SF W Admin W RR 4 56SF 40SF Boiler Parts StorageParts 1299SF A5.01 1 A5.02 1 150SF Office 26'-6" 150SF Office LightEquipment Corridor 339SF Service AreaService 12289SF 161'-4" 5 EquipmentRoom AdminBreak 927SF 274SF DW 26'-6" REF 83SF 150SF eleTe Elec 6 Glass Facade Panel 07 Glass42Panel Facade 15 MetalRolldown 08Grate 35 17 SharedConference Preformed Insulated Preformed Panel 0741 60 CMU04 20 00 639SF EQ Ext StorageExt EQ 891SF 26'-6" Metal08Rolldown 35Door 17 7 30'-6" 26'-6" 8 2

62'-6" 78'-11" A5.01 A2.01 SheetNumber: Floor Plans DrawingTitle: ProjectNo: Rev.Date 22/4Schematic 12/22/14 1 NOT FORNOT CONSTRUCTION FORREFERENCE ONLY Sonoma County Fleet & Material Lab Name Design Building

14005 790 Russell Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 g

n o Preformed Insulated Panel 07 41 60

e E

r a Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13 D C B A

4 e 25'-3" 25'-3" 25'-3"

a C

l o

o Metal Rolldown Grate 08 35 17 a

e S

Glass Facade Panel 07 42 15 u

" "

0 0

- -

' '

1 1

e Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Insulated Translucent Glass 08 80 00

s Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13

s 2 East Elevation

n i A5.01 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

O N Rev. Date Name 1 12/22/14 Schematic Design 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 26'-6" 26'-6" 26'-6" 26'-6" 26'-6" 26'-6" Preformed Insulated Panel 07 41 60 Panel Joint Typ. Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13 3'-0" Metal Guardrail 05 50 00

20'-0"

7 6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

- FOR REFERENCE ONLY

1 Project No: 14005

' 1 Drawing Title: Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Insulated Translucent Glass 08 80 00 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Metal Rolldown Grate 08 35 17 Building Elevations

1 1 North Elevation

2 Sheet Number:

2 A5.01 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

n A5.01

P A B C D E Aluminum Louver Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13 Preformed Insulated Panel 07 41 60 Panel Joint Typ. Metal Guardrail 05 50 00

a C

l o

l 25'-0"

e S

20'-0" a

l 13'-6"

3'-0" u

S 1'-0" 22'-9 3/4" Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Metal Rolldown Door 08 35 17 1'-0" Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Bollard Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Glass Facade Panel 07 42 15 Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13

2 West Elevation A5.02 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"

NOTE: If this drawing is not 34in x 22in it has been revised from its original size. Scales noted on drawings and or details are no longer applicable. Copyright 2012 - Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning Kwan Henmi - 2012 Copyright noapplicable. arelonger or details and on noted drawings Scales size. its original from has been it revised x 22in 34in is not drawing IfNOTE: this Rev. Date Name 1 12/22/14 Schematic Design

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Preformed Insulated Panel 07 41 60 Metal Guardrail 05 50 00 Insulated Translucent Glass 08 80 00 Panel Joint Typ. 25'-0" 25'-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5'-0" FOR REFERENCE ONLY 16'-0" 14'-6" Project No: 14005 2'-0"

1'-0" Drawing Title: Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13 1'-0" Aluminum Framed Entrances and Insulated Clear Glass 08 80 00 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Bollard Building Storefront 08 41 13 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13 Composite Metal Panels 07 42 13 80'-1 3/4" Metal Rolldown Door 08 35 17 12'-0" Elevations

2 Sheet Number:

2 1 South Elevation

2 1 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" : A5.02

n A5.02

P Attachment B County of Sonoma FLEET AND MATERIALS LAB BUILDING SCHEDULE January 5, 2015 2015 2016 NOV. DEC. JAN. FEBR. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEBR. MAR. APRIL

Remaining Occupancy Prior to State Turnover

CEQA:

DESIGN: Proposal & Contract for Services - SD Phase Schematic Design SD Cost Estimate Board Approval of Project & Design Contract 100% DD Documents 100% DD Estimate 90% Construction Documents 90%CD Cost Estimate 100% Construction Documents Permit

BIDDING: Prep County Front End Bid Docs Board Approval of CEQA and Issue to Bid (delegated authority to execute contract if within budget) Bid Period Execute Construction Contract

CONSTRUCTION: COMMISSIONING

MOVE IN Agenda Item Number: 30 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors and Board of Directors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): County Administrator’s Office Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Chris Thomas 565-2431 All Title: Pension Reform Update Recommended Actions: Receive an Update on Pension Reform Effort, and Authorize advance payment on Unfunded Pension Liabilities by Approving a Resolution adjusting retirement rates through June 30, 2015. Executive Summary: This item will provide an update on the Pension Reform Effort initiated by the Board in late 2011. This report reviews the significant progress made to date, recommends next steps, and seeks to implement one of those next steps by making an advanced payment on the County’s unfunded pension liabilities above and beyond the regular annual payments. In order to take that action, a resolution changing the contribution rates through June 30, 2015 is included.

Pension Reform Update

To address the unsustainable course that Sonoma County pension costs had been on throughout the prior decade, in 2011, the Board approved work toward 3 goals: Contain Costs, Maintain Market Competitiveness and Workforce Stability, and Increase Accountability and Transparency and set a target of returning pension related costs to 10% of total salary and benefit costs in ten years.

The Board established the ten year target, recognizing that it will take ongoing collaboration to develop more implementation actions and put them in place. The attached report is the first status check in on our efforts.

Significant progress has been made on each of these goals and for many of the 9 strategies that were designed to achieve them. Future costs have been reduced by a total of $178 million over the next 10 years; fiscal discipline and transparency measures have been implemented; total compensation analysis and benchmarking have been put in place, and additional retirement planning guidance and savings options for employees have been provided resulting in a 5% increase in employee retirement savings.

Revision No. 20140617-1

The following table summarizes the goals, strategies, departments assigned and current status:

Goals Strategies Depts. Status

Establish New Tier BOS/CAO, HR Done

Eliminate Ability to Spike BOS/CAO, HR Done

Contain Costs Share Market Investment In BOS/CAO, HR Risk Equally Progress BOS/CAO, In Fiscal Management ACTTC Progress Benchmark Compensation to HR Done Ensure Equity

Competitive and Provide Greater Retirement Compassionate Planning Resources for HR Done Employer Employees

Establish County In BOS/CAO, HR Compensation Philosophy Progress In Increase Changes to SCERA Board BOS/CAO Accountability Progress and Establish Independent In BOS/CAO, HR Transparency Citizens Committee Progress

More work needs to be done, ultimately, to fully meet these goals and the attached report contains recommended actions for each of the goals including:

1. Consider options for additional benefit formulas or other benefit calculation changes as needed for future labor negotiations 2. Monitor pensions and remove further pension spiking opportunities should they arise 3. Carefully consider potential impacts to pensionable compensation in labor negotiations. 4. Negotiate for employees to pay 50% of their expected (or “normal”) pension costs 5. Develop methodology for sharing unexpected pension costs for future negotiations 6. Make additional payments to pension system unfunded liability by reinvesting some savings from these recommendations

Revision No. 20140617-1 7. Monitor retirement system assumption for future earnings and advocate for further reduction if warranted 8. Establish performance measures for ensuring employees are aware of individual retirement savings planning and are making progress in meeting their goals 9. Establish performance measures to track County progress on Workforce Development 10. Review additional retirement system information sharing, transparency, and accountability options in the next year.

In order to achieve the goals, continuing monitoring and full status reports every two to three years are recommended. This will not only ensure the target remains clearly in sight but also maintain the commitment to accountability and transparency inherent in our effort.

Advance Payment on Unfunded Liabilities

In an effort to reduce future Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability (UAAL) associated with the County’s Pension benefits, as part of the 1st Quarter Budget Update on 11/14/2014 the Board of Supervisors set aside $3 million from the improved Property Tax General Fund revenue estimate. The attached Resolution increases employer pension contribution rates through payroll charges by 2-3.5% of pensionable compensation (depending upon the different pension benefit formulas) to make the additional payment to the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association between January 20 and June 30, 2015.

This increased employer contribution is estimated to result in $3.5 million in total ($3 million from General Fund and $500,000 from non-General Fund sources) to make an additional one-time payment on the County’s Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability (UAAL) for the retirement system. That UAAL was calculated at $412 million in the last actuarial evaluation completed in 2014.

By making this one-time payment, the County will not only reduce the total outstanding liability but also avoid the 7.5% in assumed earnings that the retirement system assesses the UAAL each year. Based upon the estimates provided by the retirement system actuaries, making this payment now avoids another $3 million in assumed earnings expense over the next 20 years. In practical effect, it would slightly reduce the required rates charged to pay for the UAAL each year. The actuaries also note another method for using this one-time payment, essentially holding it and crediting the earnings assumption on it and using it to pay the final payments at the end of the 20 year amortization period. This method would need to be approved by the retirement system and would have no effect on the payment rates in the interim but would have the benefit of compounding the 7.5% earnings assumption so that the last UAAL payment would be reduced or eliminated entirely. The County can work with the retirement system and make a decision about which way to proceed for accounting for this payment after the pension reform update scheduled for the Board’s review next week but approving this action today will allow the additional one-time this year to be incorporated in all the payroll processing for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Revision No. 20140617-1 Prior Board Actions: November 2011 approved Pension Reform efforts Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 2: Economic and Environmental Stewardship

Fiscal Summary - FY 14-15 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 3,500,000 County General Fund $ 3,000,000 Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ 500,000 $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ $ $ Total Expenditure $ 3,500,000 Total Sources $ 3,500,000 Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required): As part of the FY 2014-15 1st Quarter Budget Update a $3 million expenditure adjustment financed with General Fund tax revenues was approved. The $500,000 balance is expected to be covered by fiscally independent non-County General Fund program budgets such as in the Water Agency, the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and various Enterprise Funds. This additional $500,000 is not expected to require any budget adjustments due to other salary savings items but in the event that additional budget adjustments are needed, they will be included in a future consolidated budget adjustment package. Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

Attachments: Pension Reform Update and Draft Resolution Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

Revision No. 20140617-1 County of Sonoma State of California

Item Number: Date: January 27, 2015 Resolution Number:

4/5 Vote Required

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Approving a Temporary Increase of the Employer Retirement Contribution As Payment Toward the Unfunded Accumulated Actuary Liability To Mitigate Future Costs

Whereas, the Board of Board of Supervisors directed staff to identify pension reform opportunities to support the County’s goals of Economic & Environmental Stewardship and Investing in the Future.

Whereas, whereas staff identified and recommended available one time funds be used to reduce future pension costs by eliminating interest payments on the Unfunded Accumulated Actuary Liability (UAAL) in the amount of $3.5 million dollars for an estimated future savings of at least another $3 million dollars.

Whereas, the on November 14, 2014 Board of Supervisors set aside $3 million from the General Fund generated by improved Property Tax receipts to be used applied to the UAAL, and Staff estimates $500,000 will be generated by non-general fund programs, such as the Water Agency, Agriculture and Open Space District, and Fairgrounds, Risk Management, Refuse, Transit, Airport and Northern California Air Pollution Control District.

Whereas, staff recommends a temporary change to the Employer pension contribution effective January 20, 2015 and ending June 30, 2015 as shown below: Resolution Date: January 6, 2015 Page 2

Temporary Total Rates Plan A (Legacy) Current Rates Additional Rate Jan-June General 19.66% 2.64% 22.30% Safety 26.92% 3.50% 30.42%

Plan B (PEPRA) General 15.09% 2.09% 17.18% Safety 20.12% 2.69% 22.81%

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Employer contribution rates as set forth above for the County of Sonoma shall be and same are hereby ordered into effect on the first full pay period closest to beginning January 20, 2015, or as soon as considered practicable by the Retirement Administration and continue through the June 30, 2015.

Supervisors:

Rabbitt: Zane: Gore: Carrillo: Gorin:

Ayes: Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

So Ordered.

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Pension Reform Update

December 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the progress made and recommends next steps in continuing the effort the Board of Supervisors identified in 2011 as necessary to address the unsustainable course that Sonoma County pension costs had been on throughout the prior decade.

In 2011, the Board approved work toward 3 goals: Contain Costs, Maintain Market Competitiveness and Workforce Stability, and Increase Accountability and Transparency and set a target of returning pension related costs to 10% of total salary and benefit costs in ten years.

The following table summarizes the goals, strategies, departments assigned and current status of these efforts.

Goals Strategies Depts. Status

Establish New Tier BOS/CAO, HR Done

Eliminate Ability to Spike BOS/CAO, HR Done

Contain Costs Share Market Investment In BOS/CAO, HR Risk Equally Progress BOS/CAO, In Fiscal Management ACTTC Progress Benchmark Compensation to HR Done Ensure Equity Competitive and Compassionate Provide Greater Retirement Employer Planning Resources for HR Done Employees

- 1 - | Page

More work needs to be done, ultimately, to fully meet these goals and this report contains recommended actions for each of the goals including:

• Consider options for additional benefit formulas or other benefit calculation changes as needed for future labor negotiations • Monitor pensions and remove further pension spiking opportunities should they arise • Carefully consider potential impacts to pensionable compensation in labor negotiations • Negotiate for employees to pay 50% of their expected (or “normal”) pension costs • Develop methodology for sharing unexpected pension costs for future negotiations • Make additional payments to pension system unfunded liability by reinvesting some savings from these recommendations • Monitor retirement system assumption for future earnings and advocate for further reduction if warranted • Establish performance measures for ensuring employees are aware of individual retirement savings planning and are making progress in meeting their goals • Establish performance measures to track County progress on Workforce Development • Review additional retirement system information sharing, transparency, and accountability options in the next year.

The Board established the ten year target, recognizing that it will take ongoing collaboration to develop more implementation actions and put them in place. This is just the first status check in on our efforts. Changes to date are estimated to result in total pension costs of 11.4% of payroll in FY 23-24, the end of the 10 year target period. The new recommended actions in the report for more employee cost sharing and additional payments from savings toward the unfunded liability are estimated to result in total pension costs of 10.9% of total salaries and benefits in FY 23-24. That is eight plus years away and many other changes will occur during that time as well.

To borrow from the 2011 report, “There is no simple answer, silver bullet nor overnight solution. A solution must be achieved, one based on the County’s values, borne through commitment and achieved through collaboration.”

- 2 - | Page

Introduction In November 2011, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved a Pension Reform effort to address the unsustainable increasing pension related costs over the previous decade. The Pension Reform effort had been identified as one of the Board’s work priorities for the calendar year and an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Supervisors Shirlee Zane and David Rabbitt was charged with reviewing the issue and working with staff to develop policy recommendations for full Board consideration to ensure Sonoma County’s pension obligations remained fair, equitable and sustainable into the future. These 3 values were defined as follows:

Fairness- It is fair to the employee, the County as employer and the taxpayer; Equitable – Reforms ensure all employees under a benefit formula are treated equally; Sustainable – Pension obligations are met without degrading services to the community;

The report’s recommendations identified 3 goals and 9 strategies to achieve them. The report acknowledged that they could only be achieved through a combination of actions over the next several years and with good faith collective bargaining, legislative changes and increased fiscal management. The goals and strategies are: 1. Contain Costs -- Reduce pension costs to 10% of Total Compensation in 10 years from implementation;

A. Establish a new retirement formula (Tier) for new employees B. Eliminate compensation practices which can lead to spiking for all employees; establish maximum pension cap, and later target retirement age; C. Share equal risk with all employees for market investment losses and increased costs due to changes in actuarial assumptions on the retirement system; D. Strengthen fiscal management actions including establishment and adherence to a County Debt Policy and supporting a lower Discount Rate.

2. Maintain Market Competitiveness and Workforce Stability -- Attract and retain the highest quality employees.

A. Benchmark the County’s total salary and benefit packages to 95% of average of comparable market or better; B. Provide guidance for employees that encourages retirement planning and embraces three elements: County Pension, Social Security and individual savings. C. Establish a compensation philosophy that supports the County’s Strategic Goals and Objectives on workforce development.

3. Increase Accountability and Transparency -- Increased public engagement, understanding and participation in decision making process with policy makers. - 3 - | Page

A. Seek legislative changes to give the Board of Supervisors authority to add four (4) new public members to the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association Board who would not be former, current, or contract County employees; B. Explore establishment of an Independent Citizens Committee to monitor, guide and drive ongoing reform efforts.

Following the Board’s approval of the recommendations in November, significant progress has been made in implementation. During the Board’s 2014 work priority setting, an update on the progress achieved to date and additional recommendations to continue progress toward the pension reform goals was requested. This report is intended to meet that purpose taking each goal area one at a time with both progress to date and recommendations for moving forward.

PENSION REFORM UPDATE

GOAL 1. -- CONTAIN COSTS—Reduce Pension Costs to 10% of Total Compensation Costs in 10 years from implementation. This goal, with four recommended strategies to achieve it, was to address the trend over the previous decade of increasing pension related costs in proportion of total compensation. A proportion of total compensation or salaries and benefits was deemed to be a better measure than total pension related dollars only since total salary costs will change as a result of cost of living pressures and as total staffing levels are changed to provide appropriate services. Total pension dollars are affected by these changes in total salary cost but if the proportion returns to the levels seen before the unsustainable growth period of the early 2000’s it will comport with those of other employers and not unduly impact the ability to provide public services. Further, the Board’s setting the target date of 10 years after implementation of the first set of four strategies was chosen in recognition that it would take time for some of the initial strategies to have a significant effect on pension costs. In addition, there was an acknowledgement that pension costs had risen to unsustainable levels over time and time would be needed to bring them back down to levels seen at the early part of the previous decade. It was also understood that additional strategies and actions would be needed to achieve the goal and those that are subject to negotiations might take multiple rounds of negotiations with labor groups. The initial implementation was expected to take until at least March 2013 for employees who would receive general pension benefit formulas and until at least August of 2013 for employees who would receive safety pension benefit formulas due to the then existing labor contracts in place. Therefore the fiscal year beginning July 2023 (FY 23-24) is the target year for meeting this goal. The following chart shows the projected trend for costs as it was estimated in the 2011 Report, the projected costs based upon the actions taken to date (Current Course), and the projected costs with the next steps recommended in this update (Recommended Course). Even with the specific actions in the recommended steps we are projected to be 0.9% over our target so the recommended steps include continued monitoring and adjusting in order to ensure that we meet - 4 - | Page

the Board’s target. After the chart, this report goes into more detail about the accomplishments under each strategy to date and the next set of recommended steps for each strategy

35% 2011 Status Quo (31%)

30% Current course (11.4%)

Recommended course 25% (10.9%)

20%

15%

10%

5% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 ------2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Figure 1 Projected Retirement Costs as a percent of Total Salaries and Benefits.

- 5 - | Page

A. Establish a New Retirement Benefit Tier for new employees.

Accomplishments

The first strategy was to negotiate a new, lower benefit formula (tier) to be used for calculating pension benefits for all new employees hired after a particular date. State law known as the California Public Employee Pension Reform Act or PEPRA was passed during our individual employee organization negotiations on this strategy and became effective for all County employees beginning employment on or after January 1, 2013. The Board’s advocacy assisted, in part, the legislation’s resulting in new benefit formulas that closely mirrored the County’s preferred formulas.

PEPRA sets a new maximum benefit formula that can be provided to these new employees but also establishes that employees who worked for another public agency covered by California retirement laws and meets certain requirements limiting breaks in service will be provided with the County’s benefit formula that would have been effective for them had they been hired by the County as of December 31, 2012. These employees then participate in what is known as the “legacy’ benefit plan for the full term of their county employment.

The financial impact of this change in benefit formulas has been estimated as $92 million in cumulative savings by FY 23-24 and is dependent on the proportion of County employees who participate in the new benefit formula plan as compared to those in the legacy plans.1 All of the actuary reports and letters used as source material for this report (other than the annual valuation reports which are available on the Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association or SCERA website http://scretire.org/Financial/Actuarial-Reports/) are included in Attachment A.

The number of active employees in each of the plans changes frequently with turnover. As of the beginning of December, there were 608 active employees, about 16% of the total active employees in the retirement system, covered by the new benefit formula plans. An annualized savings for those 608 employees as compared to what the previous benefit plans would have cost the County is approximately $1.8 million this fiscal year in saved pension costs due to the new retirement benefit formulas. The savings will build slowly but consistently over the coming years to FY 23-24 or beyond depending on when the entire active workforce is covered by the new benefit formula plans.

Next Steps for this Strategy

PEPRA does not prevent the County from further negotiating with employee organizations to offer other benefit formulas than established in the law but these additional benefit formulas cannot result in more cost to the County. Current case law also indicates that benefit formulas cannot be reduced for existing employees, even for future service, but there are some proponents

1 Calculation derived from Bartel Associates letter dated December 7, 2012 - 6 - | Page

for changing California law to allow for such reductions. Even if those changes are made, it is not clear that they would be allowed under federal law.

Since PEPRA set a new, level playing field for new public employees statewide only two years ago, it is not clear whether the State Legislature will make any other changes until there is more data on the financial impacts on pension costs for public agencies and the state itself.

The 2011 report also contained recommendations regarding retroactive application of enhanced benefit formulas. The first recommendation, a prohibition on any retroactive pension increases unless fully paid for by employees has been superseded by PEPRA which prohibits any retroactive pension increases entirely. The second recommendation was to commission a calculation of the payments by employees for the retroactive application of the enhanced benefit formula that was approved in the early 2000’s and compare that to the total cost of that obligation. If any shortfall was projected, it was suggested that staff should work with the labor organizations through negotiations to meet the intent of the prior agreements with respect to employees contributing to pay for the costs of the retroactive application of the enhanced benefit formulas.

In 2012 and 2013, the County did engage an actuary, Bartel Associates, to provide several calculations and estimates regarding a variety of potential changes and included in the scope a review of this issue. The actuary found that the assumptions necessary to make at this point, only one half of the way through the intended 20 years of increased employee contributions toward this cost, rendered the projections of any future shortfalls highly likely to be inaccurate and recommended that we conduct this review at a later time, closer to FY 23-24.

Staff recommends that the County continue to monitor both the progress toward the cost containment goal as a whole but also any changes to state law and consider options for additional efforts under this strategy as needed in the next Pension Reform update.

B. Eliminate Compensation Practices Which Lead To Spiking.

Accomplishments

This strategy focused on elements of total compensation on which the pension benefit formulas apply in order to calculate a retiree’s pension, particularly those elements that could be manipulated to result in an increase for the final year’s compensation and thus an increase in pension (aka pension spiking) or the collection of pension and getting continued compensation for work (aka double dipping).

There were four specific actions included in this strategy when approved in 2011 which were then incorporated in the following nearly 2 years of employee organization negotiations.

The first specific recommended action was to reduce allowed pensionable income. The County reached agreement with all employee organizations to reduce the amount of income provided in

- 7 - | Page

those elements of compensation that could be used to raise the final pensionable compensation amount in the calculation of the pension benefit. Examples of these items included the elimination of the ability to cash out accrued sick or vacation leave while employed; the reduction in compensatory time awarded (and therefore eligible for cash out) in lieu of holiday time or as a part of an annual accrual; and the reduction in floating holiday and premium pays. PEPRA also assisted by providing some definition changes to what could be considered by SCERA as pensionable compensation. SCERA then made a determination as to what types of compensation would be considered pensionable for the County’s retirement system under the new law. Attachment B to this report shows the SCERA determination with respect to all of the various types of compensation. This determination excluded from pensionable compensation, for example, any county contributions to deferred comp programs and any final year pay increases for department heads as a result of providing the county with at least one year’s notice before retirement. These changes were valued by the SCERA actuaries in their December 31, 2013 valuation report as resulting in a $4.6 million savings in the annual contribution rates2 and were estimated to result in $41.3 million in savings cumulatively by FY 23-24.3

The second specific recommended action was to change the final pensionable compensation used for establishing the pension benefit from a single highest year to a highest 3 year average. PEPRA established the utilization of a three year average for final pensionable compensation determinations for the new benefit formula plans. The change was consistent with the County’s strategy for this item. The County did not prepare any separate estimates of the individual impact of this change but sought it as an additional safeguard against any instance of spiking. The SCERA actuaries took this change into account when setting the new benefit formula plan rates under PEPRA and thus the savings are included in the total for the new benefit tier above.

The third specific action was to establish a total pension cap to 100% of the base salary. Existing law already capped benefits that can be paid by the County’s retirement system at 100% of final pensionable compensation. This action was to seek, through bargaining, an additional cap related to 100% of base salary which can be a different thing if there are elements of final compensation beyond just base pay that are considered pensionable compensation as noted above. As staff understood it, since this affected the benefit formula, a bargained cap of 100% of base pay would only apply to new hires. Under the new benefit structure put into place with PEPRA there was also a provision that addressed this cap in a different way. PEPRA limits total compensation for pension calculation at a maximum dollar amount (tied the federal totals for Social Security earnings and the consumer price index, currently just over $110,000) for employees hired after January 1, 2013. Thus there are already two limits to total pensions in place and to add one that would serve only to further limit those with final pensionable compensation at amounts lower than the federal totals for Social Security earnings would inequitably affect lower paid employees. As a result, staff is reporting this action as complete. The SCERA actuaries took this change into account when setting the new benefit formula plan rates under PEPRA and thus the savings are included in the total for the new benefit tier above.

2 See page vii of the December 31, 2013 annual valuation report on SCERA’s website 3 Calculation derived from Bartel Associates letter dated 2/21/13 - 8 - | Page

Finally, the last specific action was to limit the ability for retirees to “double-dip”. This action, while not saving any costs associated with the retirement system, was to prevent anyone receiving County pension payments from returning to work and earning more pensionable income or the perception of being able to do so. In June 2011, the Board established a policy that required a minimum 60-day break in service for any retirees who retired before the “normal” retirement age (defined as before age 50 for safety members and before age 58 for general members). Further, effective January 1, 2013 PEPRA established a 180-day break requirement before most retirees could return to employment unless the Board of Supervisors on its regular agenda determines the need for such employee to return warrants an exception. In September 2014, in anticipation of AB2473, which was effective January 1, 2015 and clarified the authority and responsibility of county retirement systems to enforce break in service standards to the extent required by IRS tax regulations, the Retirement Board and Board of Supervisors reiterated the County’s policy of a minimum 60-day break in service for any retiree who retirees below the “normal” retirement age. These provisions are in addition to the restrictions of a maximum of 960 hours worked in a fiscal year already required for a retiree to maintain retiree status pursuant to IRS regulations. Staff have implemented retiree hiring compliance procedures to ensure departments and retirees are complying with these provisions and policies. Staff will monitor post retirement extra-help usage and will develop recommendations in the event usage shows significant and unwanted increases in the future.

Next Steps for this Strategy

While the ability to manipulate final pensionable compensation in order to achieve higher pensions appears to have been eliminated, staff recommends that the County continue to monitor pension amounts as determined by SCERA each year and to take appropriate steps to address any practices to manipulate final pensionable compensation should they begin to occur in the future. Further, staff recommends that the Board carefully consider the potential impacts on pensionable compensation in the course of future labor negotiations when considering agreeing to any changes in total compensation.

C. Share Risk equally between Employer and Employee for Market Investments Losses and Actuarial Assumption Changes.

Accomplishments

In the course of the last labor negotiations, the County and its employees agreed to eliminate any County contributions toward the employee’s share of retirement costs, an important first step in this overall strategy and saving the County an estimated $44.7 million in total by FY 23-24.4 In addition, the agreements also continue the 3% of pay contribution from employees covered by the new, lower benefit formulas under PEPRA toward the County’s unfunded liability associated with the retroactive application of higher benefit formulas in the early 2000’s. PEPRA did not automatically require this contribution to continue and would have represented a total estimated

4 Calculated by amount contributed annually during negotiations and tallied for all future years - 9 - | Page

loss of over $46 million5 in contributions toward the UAAL by the end of FY 23-24 if the County and its employees had not reached this agreement.

Next Steps for this Strategy

This strategy envisions greater contributions from employees over time, ultimately sharing more equally the risks that now fall solely on the employer for costs associated with market losses and actuarial assumption changes. Reaching these goals will require the County to negotiate with regard to the expected costs for the system and then to address those unexpected costs such as market losses and actuarial assumption changes, while also balancing with the efforts for Goal 2, “Maintain Market Competitiveness and Workforce Stability”.

With respect to the expected costs, that is those that the actuary estimates will be paid as pension benefits for an employee each year as they work (also referred to as “normal’ costs), employees covered by the old benefit formulas in place before PEPRA contribute less than 50% of the expected cost each year based upon existing law. On average safety employees under the old formulas contribute about 4.7% of pay less than 50% of the cost and general employees, about 1.7% of pay less than 50% of the cost. (New employees covered by the new, lower benefit formulas under PEPRA do contribute 50% of the expected or “normal” cost.) Staff recommends that during future labor negotiations, achieving the 50% employee contribution toward “normal” costs for those employees covered by the old benefit formulas should be considered by the Board as a high priority goal. This is estimated to save the County up to $53.7 million through FY 23- 24.6 If the 50% contribution cannot be achieved through good faith negotiations by January 1, 2018, current law allows for it to be imposed after that point.

With respect to the unexpected costs, those costs associated with a market loss or actuary assumption changes for example, the methodology of sharing more equally in the risk needs to be further developed and may be different for different elements of this risk. When these risks result in a cost, those costs are referred to as the Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liabilities (UAAL) and are only borne by the employer. They are currently calculated each year and the employer is assessed a rate to recover the costs over 20 years. Generally, a fully funded plan would have no UAAL, though in some cases, like that of Sonoma County, pension obligation bonds (POB’s) have been issued which while they contribute proceeds to the retirement system, remain an obligation of the employer. Thus the total UAAL and outstanding POB debt should be considered in the analysis of methodologies for sharing more equally in the risk. Staff recommends that the County Administrators Office be charged with developing this methodology further in conjunction with Human Resources and SCERA over the next year.

D. Increase Fiscal Oversight

Accomplishments

5 Calculation derived from Bartel Associates letter dated January 28, 2013 6 The calculations in this paragraph are derived from the Segal Consulting letter dated 11/20/14 regarding potential impact of implementing employer cost savings provisions of PEPRA. - 10 - | Page

There were five specific actions identified with this strategy. The first called for limiting total County Debt Services through a Debt Management Policy. This new policy approved by the Board on May 12, 2012 and covered all of the elements suggested in the 2011 report (setting ranges for General Fund lease debt and Pension Obligation Bond Debt, and identifying when to incur debt) and more. The policy is included as Attachment C

In addition, has taken steps to reduce its total outstanding debt obligations by over $239 million since the 2011 report as well. The following table compares total outstanding debt taken from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of the County for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2014. We have included total UAAL due to the retirement system from the systems actuary reports for the calendar years 2010 and 2013 as those would be the most updated estimates of liability at that those times. In addition, since the actuary reports identify but defer some losses and gains in these reports, we include those figures as well because it gives the most accurate reading of the total obligations at that time.

Type of Debt Outstanding 6/30/11 6/30/14 UAAL* 248,586,000 449,443,000 Deferred Losses/(Gains)* 139,003,000 (205,992,000) Pension Obligation Bonds 515,455,000 459,165,000 Other Bonds 202,734,000 179,773,000 LT Contract Payable (Warm Springs Dam) 103,916,000 94,826,000 Loans Payable 77,860,000 75,513,000 Certificates of Participation 48,217,000 29,899,000 Notes, Capital Leases, and Advances from Other Govts. 60,533,000 73,820,000 Total 1,396,304,000 1,156,447,000

*These numbers are for the entire retirement system. The County accounts for the vast majority of these figures but the Courts and other employers have some share of these as well. However, separate figures for each employer were not provided by the retirement system actuary in these reports. One figure we do have is that the County’s share of the $449,443,000 in UAAL for the most recent actuary report was $412,000,000.7

The credit ratings have also improved since the 2011 report as follows

Item 2011 Report Standard & Poors - 2014 Fitch - 2014 General Obligation AA- AA AA+ Pension Obligation AA/AA- AA AA Notes SP -1+ SP-1+ NA Certificates of AA- AA NA Participation Sales Tax Bonds NA NA AA+

7 See SCERA website for actuary reports and the Segal Consulting letter dated 11/20/14 for the $412 million figure. - 11 - | Page

The second specific action for this strategy was to prioritize debt repayment when it is in the County’s best interest to do so. As noted above, the County has continued to reduce total outstanding debt, reducing it by 12% since the last report. The third specific action was to mandate additional public reporting of County debt obligations. This was to be separate from the annual reporting in the budget and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Staff have been working on developing this separate annual report, consistent with the Debt Management Policy, and expect to complete this recommendation in the coming year. The fourth specific action for this strategy was to support reductions in the retirement system’s discount rate. The discount rate, also referred to as the earnings assumption, is the amount the retirement system’s actuaries use in their calculations accounting for how much the retirement system will earn annually on its investments. Using reduced discount rates means the system relies on less future investment earnings when setting employer and employee contribution rates and this, in turn, reduces the impact of future investment market performance on the funded status of the pension system. Since the pension reform effort was initiated and with the support of The Board of Supervisor’s appointed members to the SCERA Board, the SCERA Board unanimously approved a reduction from 8% to 7.5% for the discount rate for the retirement system. While this increases current contribution costs from both the employer and the employee, it is seen as a more prudent future earnings estimate thus reducing market risk in the future. Finally, the 2011 report’s fifth specific recommended action was for the Board of Supervisors to endorse a policy that the Retirement System maintain a funding ratio between 95% and 105% of funds to liabilities. Staff have developed the following as a policy of the Board for inclusion in the annual Financial Policies for Budget Development:

“The County and other Government Agencies governed by the Board of Supervisors support the funding of the employee retirement system each year at a ratio of between 95%-105% assets to liabilities. The County Administrator shall work with the Retirement System Administrator to develop a forecast of financing required for the County (and other Government Agencies governed by the Board of Supervisors) and will include options to achieve the desired funding levels along with each recommended budget.”

Next Steps for this Strategy Staff recommends continuing to prioritize the reduction of total outstanding debt and has brought forward an option to continue those efforts, allocating $3.5 million largely from increased property tax revenues in FY 14-15 to make an additional payment on the current UAAL. This will save $3 million in future financing costs payable to SCERA.8

8 The calculations in this paragraph are derived from the Segal Consulting letter dated 11/20/14 regarding accelerated funding of UAAL by the County. - 12 - | Page

It is also staff’s recommendation for the Board to direct staff to use the savings from the other pension reform actions above as they grow over the next several years to continue to make additional payments on the outstanding UAAL. Similar to the next steps recommendations for the previous strategy, staff recommends prioritizing the use of these savings generated in the rate by the initial $3.5 million as well as much of the savings from any increased employee contributions as possible, and reinvesting them as additional advanced payments on the UAAL.

In practice this would be keeping the total contribution to SCERA at a slightly higher rate each year than would otherwise be required. The difference each year would be used in making similar, additional payments toward the UAAL, saving more in future financing costs, and, ultimately, paying off the UAAL more quickly. It is the combination of these two next step recommendations that are modeled in the projections in the beginning of the report reflecting at total additional payment of $37 million by redirecting some of the savings and having the added benefit of eliminating $26 million in future financing costs at the current assumed earnings rate of 7.5%.

In addition to the annual debt reporting effort noted above, with the upcoming application of Government Accounting Standards Board Statements 67 and 68, a consistent way of reporting on outstanding pension related obligations, staff will be able to more easily compare to other agencies as we monitor and report on the progress made addressing outstanding obligations in the years ahead.

Staff also recommends careful monitoring of the estimates of future earnings for the retirement system. Currently, many economists believe that even 7.5% is too optimistic of an earnings assumption over time. Should the majority opinion of economists and other pension systems continue to believe that a more realistic earnings assumption differ by more than 1% from the current 7.5% used by SCERA, serious consideration should be given to additional incremental reductions in the earnings assumption in the coming years. This will have a near term impact of increasing the UAAL by roughly $50 million for each change9 (about a $2.5 million increase in employer cost annually) and will also change some of the overall savings estimates since the calculations were based upon the current earnings assumptions; so staff should be directed to carefully monitor these discussions at SCERA and continue to plan for the impact of these changes in the multiyear budget forecasts provided for the Board.

GOAL 2. MAINTAIN MARKET COMPETIVENESS AND WORKFORCE STABILITY

This goal, with three strategies to achieve it, was intended to balance the need to continue to attract and retain high quality employees as the pension reform work was being carried out.

9 Based upon the analysis shared at the 5/1/13 SCERA meeting reviewing the December 31, 2012 valuation. - 13 - | Page

A. Benchmark the County’s total salary and benefit packages to 95% of the average in the comparable market or better.

Accomplishments

The County has established a regular process for measuring its total compensation standings in the employment market; including, where appropriate, comparison to the private sector. Comparable agencies are surveyed at the outset of the negotiations cycle. In addition, the County has been operating with a prudent benchmark of 95% or better of the average of our comparable market for total compensation and continues to work with labor organizations through negotiations on the comparison agencies and job classes for the purposes of assessing the labor market.

Next Steps for this Strategy

This work has been incorporated into the regular on-going operations of the County. Adjusting the list of comparable agencies is a subject of bargaining and frequently comes up in negotiations. Staff expects that this topic will be discussed as a part the next negotiation cycle.

B. Provide guidance for employees that encourages retirement planning and embraces three elements: County Pension, Social Security and individual savings.

This strategy was to assist in ensuring that all employees have the knowledge to set and achieve their own individual retirement planning goals. The Board has expressed concern that employees have not focused on achieving the amount of individual savings needed to supplement the other two sources of annual post-employment income needed for their retirement. While every individual’s situation is different, there are rules of thumb such as: aiming to achieve 75%-85% of one’s final annual income from employment in retirement and that it will take roughly 8 times one’s final annual employment income in savings to achieve that goal by savings10 and Social Security alone for an average retirement expectancy; which allow for everyone to conduct some relatively simple calculations for their own appropriate retirement savings targets.

Accomplishments

Staff from the Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector, Human Resources and SCERA have instituted an additional portion of the monthly new employee orientation sessions that provides detailed information on how the County’s voluntary deferred compensation plan supplements County retirement and how to make the most of this benefit. These sessions average 7-10 employees per month. Feedback from attendees is that it is very helpful and appreciated. In addition, staff also put together and held 20 workshops for National Save For Retirement Week in October. A total of 196 employees from 25 different departments attended the workshops which covered topics ranging from Retirement 101 and Annual Investment Check-ups to

10 From Fidelity Investments, Fidelity Viewpoints, 1/30/14 - 14 - | Page

Planning for Healthcare in Retirement and Benefit Information for those retiring in 2015. SCERA also holds separate monthly Retirement Planning workshops for those thinking about retiring in the next few years.

Following up on the portion of this recommended strategy that individual savings should be incentivized, the Board also authorized a new Incentive Retirement Savings Plan in July 2014 which contains matching contributions into a deferred compensation program. A comparison of employee contributions in April 2014, before much of the training and before the initiation of the new Incentive Retirement Savings Plan became available, and December 2014 shows nearly a 10% increase in total number of staff making voluntary contributions into deferred comp for their own future retirement savings (2,394 staff total participating) and nearly a 5% increase in the total amount saved rising from $11.5 million to $12.1 million on an annualized basis.

Next Steps for this Strategy

Staff anticipate additional bargaining groups will consider participation in the new matching retirement savings incentive program and that as a result overall participation both in terms of numbers of employees and amounts saved in this program will increase. In addition, alternative investment tools which rely completely on employee participation will also be investigated and offered to employees as they become more available and prove viable in the labor marketplace.

Staff recommends establishing some performance measures to work toward for ensuring that all employees are aware of retirement savings planning targets and are making progress in meeting their goals. Both of these measures will likely have to be taken by survey. Staff recommends that we set the goal of 95% of permanent employees report they are aware of retirement savings planning targets and making progress toward meeting them. Staff will work with SCERA and employee organizations to achieve these measurements.

C. Establish a Compensation Philosophy that supports the County’s Strategic Goals and Objectives.

This strategy looked at the development of a series of elements which overall can be taken as a compensation philosophy for the County as an employer in order to best serve the needs of the community. These elements should also support the County’s Strategic Goals and Objectives going forward and should include not only survey methodology, the benchmark of what the County should pay in relation to the labor market and the definition of the labor market comparables noted above, but also incorporate internal relationships for review and benchmarking, workforce stability, and retention elements to ensure best practices are in place for guiding decision making on the total compensation package of wage and benefit programs.

Accomplishments

- 15 - | Page

Staff developed each of these elements to differing degrees for use in the last negotiations cycle and received Board direction with respect to each of them as appropriate in the course of those negotiations. The packaging of all of them into a compensation philosophy to be adopted by the Board is a longer process involving negotiations with employee bargaining organizations.

Next Steps for this Strategy

Each of the elements will be reviewed with the Board again in preparation for the next cycle of negotiations and any changes will be incorporated as appropriate as the negotiations cycle progresses. In addition, staff will continue to work to improve data collection and analysis with the further development of the Human Resources Management System and the Enterprise Finance System and will evaluate the feasibility of packaging into a formal philosophy for potential future discussions with employee organizations and the Board. Some elements such as retention efforts will also continue development on a separate path. An example of this is the overall County Workforce Development effort that was approved in 2014 and has already begun by providing 108 classes with a total of 2032 attendees in the Sonoma County Training Spiral for Success. In addition, as performance measures are updated in the ongoing efforts to update and implement the County’s Strategic Plan, specific measures in alignment with the Strategic Plan Goals will be developed to track progress on workforce development and other elements of the compensation philosophy.

GOAL 3. – INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

This goal, with the two recommended strategies to achieve it, was intended to increase public engagement, understanding, and participation in decision making with the policy makers. A. Seek legislative changes to give the Board of Supervisors authority to add four (4) new public members to the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association Board who would not be former, current, or contract County employees

Accomplishments

As noted in the 2011 report the action for this strategy requires special legislation. Staff added this item to the County’s legislative platform and have tried during the last two legislative sessions to have a bill introduced and passed to add the requested additional staff members but have been unsuccessful. In the meantime, the Board of Supervisors has had two opportunities to fill vacancies among the public members and each vacancy has been filled successfully. For each vacancy, a small number of qualified candidates have been found after advertisement and word of mouth solicitation for these positions, and many of the potential candidates have withdrawn their interest due to the time commitment required to fill this role which is a fiduciary for the trust fund managed by the system.

Next Steps for this Strategy

- 16 - | Page

Staff recommends reconsidering this recommendation after the second vacancy is filled and in coordination with the SCERA Strategic Plan approved in November 2014 which is included as Attachment D. One of the reasons noted for the recommendation to expand the numbers of public members on the retirement board was to improve transparency and create a greater means to educate and inform the public. Staff anticipates that the work coming from the SCERA Strategic Planning effort will assist not only in transparency and better public understanding of the system and the role of the retirement board members but also, therefore, in identifying more potential candidates for any expanded number of Board of Supervisors appointees to that board. Should the Board of Supervisors wish to continue to pursue an expanded number of appointees to the retirement board, staff will develop additional materials in conjunction with SCERA staff as they work to implement their Strategic Plan to assist our legislative delegation in securing passage of the necessary special legislation.

In addition to these efforts and the periodic updates the Board of Supervisor’s has gotten on the status of the retirement system, staff will work with SCERA to provide a more detailed presentation to the Board of Supervisors each year as a part of the annual rate setting process that will draw on the most recent actuary report and financial reports of the system.

B. Explore establishment of an Independent Citizens Committee to monitor, guide and drive ongoing reform efforts.

Accomplishments Shortly after the last pension report, staff explored the establishment of an Independent Citizens Committee as requested. Staff’s recommendation at that time was to focus on the immediate needs in the other recommended strategies and to revisit this recommendation if still deemed necessary after the first round of changes were made. Nest Steps for this Strategy As noted above, many of the changes achieved in the implementation of the first set of strategies have been highly successful, in no small part due to the focused staff efforts in working with all employee bargaining organizations. As we embark upon the next set of employee negotiations it may create a unnecessary complications to attempt to establish the framework of conditions within which an Independent Citizens Committee operates and does not appear to be needed at this time in order to make the next round of changes identified above. Staff recommends that the time to revisit this recommendation be set for the fall of 2015.

CONCLUSION

The 2011 Board of Supervisors set a course to address the unsustainable increase in pension costs seen over the preceding decade. They established goals and strategies to address this issue but keeping in mind key values and recognizing that the issue was not going to be resolved overnight and could only be resolved in collaboration with staff and other key stakeholders.

- 17 - | Page

The course they set has seen significant successes and progress made toward the target of returning pension related costs to 10% of total salary and benefit costs by FY 23-24. An estimated total savings of $178 million can be seen in the table below from the actions taken to date. This was done at the same time as increasing the overall workforce stability by providing total compensation information and retirement planning guidance to County employees, increasing employee retirement savings, and increasing fiscal oversight, transparency, and accountability.

New Tier for Defined benefit $92.0 million Eliminate Spiking $41.3 million Shared Risks -Market Loss Costs $44.7 million Total Avoided Costs (through FY23-24) $178 million

More work needs to be done on each of the goal areas and recommendations in this report will assist in getting there if estimated additional savings potential is achieved through employees in the old benefit formulas paying 50% of their expected or “normal” costs. Further by reinvesting these savings as additional payments toward the unfunded pension liability the result is an additional $26 million in future financing cost reductions. There will also need to be regular continuing monitoring and additional adjustments made in order to maintain the course and ultimately reach the goals without eroding the public services that the County provides.

- 18 - | Page

l l j'-- .. 1 .lSSC)C:I;\I.ES. L~ L\_,;

December 7, 2012

Chris Thomas Assistant County Administrator County Adminstrator's Office County of Sonoma 575 Adniinistration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Re: Retirement Plan Benefit Changes Required by AB 340 (PEPRA)

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Section 7507 of the California Government Code requires agencies to obtain a statement of actuarial opinion regarding the cost impact of retirement plan benefit changes. This letter provides the actuarial impact ofrequired retirement benefit changes for Sonoma County employees who will become members of the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association (SCERA) in the future.

Summary of Proposed Benefit Changes Currently the County provides retirement benefits for General employees under Section 31676.17 of the County Employees' Retirement Law (3% at 60 formula) and for Safety employees under Section 31664.l of the County Employees Retirement Law (3% at 50 formula). These benefits are based on highest consecutive 1-year compensation.

Starting January 1, 2013 the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), part of AB 340, mandates reduced retirement benefits for most employees hired by the County who were not previously members of a reciprocal public retirement system. In general, PEPRA requires reduced benefit formulas of 2.5%@67 for General members and 2. 7%@57 for Safety members. These benefits are based on a 36-month average salary that excludes certain cashout payments at retirement (for items such as accumulated sick leave and vacation) and also exclude certain other forms of compensation enumerated in the law. Pensionable earnings are limited to $113,700 (the Social Security Wage Base) in 2013; that limit will increase in the future with cost-of-living.

lt is our understanding that new members subject to PEPRA will contribute Y2 of the Normal Cost plus the current member contribution towards the Plan's unfunded actuarial accrued liability.

Summary of Cost Change The results in this letter are based on contribution rate information contained in the Segal Company's November 21, 2012 PEPRA report and calculations performed by Bartel Associates to project estimated dollar savings. We have relied upon the Segal Company's calculations for purposes of our dollar savings calculations after testing for general reasonability. We note that contribution rate results are based on the demography of employees hired in 201 J and that actual impacts may vary considerably depending on the actual demography of new hires and the proportion of those hires that are subject to reciprocity and thus not covered under the new PEPRA formulas. Chris Tl1omas r\ Dccem her 7. '.W 12 \; ; i ) Page 2

Our calculations of projected savings are based on the data and actuarial assumptions used in SCERA ·s December 31. 2011 actuarial valuation. the special calculations for Tier 2 contained in our report dated November20. 2012, and the Segal Company report ofNovember 21. 2012. The additional assumptions listed in Attachment A were necessary for this special costing.

The County's contribution to SCERA is equal to the employer Normal Cost (the value of benefits earned during the year) plus the amortized unfunded liability (the value of benefits that have been earned in previous years offset by the actuarial value of plan assets). Because the new benefit formulas would apply only to future new hires, the unfunded actuarial liability will remain unchanged. As do current members, nev.· members under PEPRA will pay 3.03% of pay (General members) and 3.00% of pay (Safety members) as a contribution towards the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). The exhibit below summarizes the employer normal cost rates from the Segal Company November 21, 2012 report before and after the PEPRA benefit formulas.

Table 1: Normal Cost Percent for new members covered by the reduced PEPRA retirement benefit formulas

Current PEPRA • 2013 Employer Normal Cost Rates • General 13.81% 7.47% • Safety 20.74% 11.57%

The PEPRA rates are applicable to compensation that is pensionable under PEPRA.

Please note the employer normal cost remains unchanged for employees hired on or before December 31, 2012. This means the new normal cost rates will only apply to employees hired on or after January 1, 20.13. ln order to illustrate the dollar impact on contributions we show a projection of savings at intervals over the next 10 years. We anticipate that as time passes thereafter more and more people will be eligible for this benefit which will ultimately lead to an increase in annual savings until such time as all members are covered by the PEPRA formulas.

Table 2: Estimated Savings ($s in thousands) (Totals may not add up due to rounding.)

Calendar Year General Safety Total 2013 $970 $260 $1,220 2017 $5,410 $1,650 $7,060 2022 $12.560 $4,500 $17,060

Results by year and by bargaining group are shown in Attachment B. Chris Thomas December 7, 2012 .Page 3

Conclusion As illustrated above we believe the County's actuarial cost will decrease due to the benefit changes required by PEPRA.

Sincerely,

~~ .. ~ Marilyn M. Oliver, FSA, MAAA, EA, FCA ~~ ELabeth Redding, FSA, MAAA: EA Vice President & Actual)' Assistant Vice President & Actuary c: John Bartel - Bartel Associates, LLC A.. TTACHMC!\T A ACTUARIAL ASSllMPTJONS AND METHODS

Proba hilities of Retirement: Memhcrs covered by the PEPRA formulas are assumed to delay their retirements due to the lower retirement benefits provided. The assumed rates used are detailed in the Segal Company report of November 2L 2012. Similarly. early retirement rates different from those used in the December 31, 2011 actuarial valuation were used for Tier 2 members as detailed in our report dated November 20, 2012. New Hires: Future new PEPRA hires are assumed to have similar demography to the new hires over the one -year preceding the December 31, 2011 valuation. The sample group was comprised of 186 General and 14 Safety new hires. Percentage of New Hires Not Covered by the Reduced Retirement Benefit Formulas Mandated by PEPRA: Effective January 1, 2013 PEPRA reduced benefit formulas generally cover new members of SCERA who are not entitled to reciprocity. We assumed that 90% of General new employees and 80% of Safet) new employees will fall in this category. However, as time passes, some new hires entitled to reciprocity will have already been covered by PEPRA 's reduced benefit formulas under their prior employer - for instance if their first membership in a California retirement system covered by PEPRA started on or after .January 1, 2013. To take this into account we have gradually increased the 90% and 80% assumptions to 95% and 90% over the neA.1 5 years. to 97 .5% and 95% over the succeeding 5 years. and to 100% at the end of 20 years.

Bartel A.ssociates, LLC County of Sonoma ATTACHMENT B DETAILED RESULTS

10-year Projection of Savings Table 3: Projection of Savings ($s in thousands) due to change in formulas (Totals may not add up due to rounding.)

Calendar Year General Safety Total 2013 $970 $260 $1,220 2014 $1,970 $560 $2,530 2015 $3,050 $860 $3,910 2016 $4,170 $1,230 .$5,400 2017 $5,410 $1,650 $7,060 2018 $6,740 $2,150 "$8,890 2019 $8,130 $2,670 $10,800 2020 $9,570 $3,290 $12,860 2021 $11,040 $3,880 $14,930 2022 $12,560 $4,500 $17,060

10-Year Projection of Savings by Employee Group Shown below are projected savings by employee group. These numbers were calculated using allocation percentages supplied by the County that were based on pay and the savings in normal cost percentages for General or Safety as applicable. Thus, they do not reflect the demographic characteristics of each group. (Totals may not add up due to rounding.)

Table 4: Projection of Savings due to formula change by Employee Group - General ($sin thousands)

General Salary SEIU Local39 PA DPDAA LEMA LEA PDIA WCE ESC Resol Total 2013 $480 $40 $30 $10 $0 $20 $0 $20 $70 $300 $970 2014 $970 $80 $60 $30 $0 $50 $10 $40 $150 $600 $1,970 2015 $1,500 $120 $80 $50 $0 $70 $10 $60 $230 $930 $3,050 2016 $2,050 $160 $120 $60 $0 $100 $20 $80 $310 $1,270 $4,170 2017 $2,660 $210 $150 $80 $10 $130 $20 $110 $410 $1,650 $5,410 2018 $3,310 $260 $190 $100 $10 $160 $30 $130 $510 $2,050 $6,740 2019 $3,990 $320 $230 $120 $10 $190 $30 $160 $610 $2,480 $8,130 2020 $4,700 $370 $270 $140 $10 $220 $40 $190 $720 $2,910 $9,570 2021 $5,420 $430 $310 $170 $10 $260 $40 $220 $830 $3,360 $11,040 2022 $6,170 $490 $350 $190 $10 $290 $50 $250 $940 $3,830 $12,560

Bartel Associates, LLC County of Sonoma ·1 able:'>: Projec1ion of Savings due to formula change by Employee Group- Safety ($sin thousands)

Safety Salary LCIVIA LEA DSA DSLEM Resol Total 2013 $10 $140 $100 $10 $0 $260 2014 $20 $300 $210 $20 $0 $560 2015 $30 $470 $330 $30 $0 $860 2016 $50 $660 $470 $50 $0 $1.230 2017 $60 $890 $640 $70 $0 $1.650 2018 $80 $1,160 $830 $90 $0 $2.150 2019 $100 $1,440 $1,030 $110 $0 $2,670 2020 $120 $1,770 $1.270 $130 $0 $3.290 2021 $140 $2,090 $1.490 $160 $0 $3,880 2022 $170 $2.420 $1,730 $180 $0 $4,500

O:\Clients\County of Sonoma\2012\Reports\BA SonomaCo 2012-12-07 PEPRA 7507 lettertdocx BllRTEL 71ssoCIATES, LLC

February 21, 2013

Chris Thomas Assistant County Administrator County Adminstrator's Office County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Re: Effect of Pensionable Pay Changes on Pension Costs

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We understand that the County of Sonoma may consider eliminating certain types of pensionable pay or certain pay-related practices beginning in 2013. This letter provides the actuarial impact on pension costs of these possible changes in a manner consistent with Section 7507 of the California Government Code which requires agencies to obtain a statement of actuarial opinion regarding the cost impact of retirement plan benefit changes.

Pensionable Earnings Impact Our calculations are based on analysis of actual compensation paid in 2011 and 2012 by pay type across all County employees in each bargaining unit. We reviewed the compensation for all active employees with special emphasis on retiring employees, and we also considered the County rules regarding employee elections of cashouts and leave usage in order to determine the projected effect of a change in the County's pay practices. Our analysis of each element is summarized in Attachment A.

In our study we limited savings to those not already realized due to changes in pensionable earnings brought about by the requirements of AB340 ("PEPRA") and AB 197.

A summary of the projected effect of the changes in pensionable earnings is summarized below. Attachment B contains the results separately for each bargaining unit. While the impact of the changes was separately analyzed for each unit, the overall average impact assumes the proportion of payroll for each unit previously supplied by the County.

Averaee Reduction in Pensionable Earnings Pay Type Eliminated from Pensionable Earnings General Members Safety Members Sick Leave Cashout 0.30% 0.30% County Contributions to Deferred Compensation 0 0 Vacation & Admin Leave Cashout 2.30% 2.30% Holiday Comp Time Cashout and Floating Holiday 0.29% 0.21% 5% Pay Increase for Retiring Department Heads 0 0 Premium Pay of 0.1 % of total pay 0.10% 0.10%

I! 1 B()rcl \\-... 11111.·. ~u1k ! 1 11 • .....::;in \L1k<1. { ,1iif(1r111.1 IJ f J112

main: (1.111 )"7-- I ()n11 •Jax: Ci:111 _)-t'.)-811.~-:- •web:\\\\,.._ .lurh'l-.t~"()( i.ttl':-.<. ~n11 Chris Thomas February 21, 2013 Page 2

Pension Cost Impact For current employees, changing pensionable earnings affects the County's pension costs in two ways. First, there is a change in the Actuarial Accrued Liability as of the change date. This change has been amortized over 20 years as a level percentage of total payroll. Secondly, the Normal Cost for each future year will also change, including a recalculation of the Employee Normal Cost rates. All of these changes relate directly to the change in final average salary at retirement rather than the change in pensionable earnings in other years before retirement.

Our calculations are based on our determination of the projected changes in pensionable earnings outlined above, applied to the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Normal Costs in the December 31, 2011 actuarial valuation of the plan, and assume that the actuarial assumptions in that valuation will remain in effect. In addition, our estimate of the future impact of the changes included the impact on future hires with reciprocal service and future new members under PEPRA as applicable. That analysis used the same assumptions as in our previous reports dated November 20, 2012 and December 7, 2012.

A summary of the projected effect of the changes in pensionable earnings is summarized below. Premium pay figures are based on premium pay amounts of.1% of total pay. For example, if premium pay were 5.0% of total pay, then the savings are calculated based on a reduction to 4.9% of total pay.

Reduction in 12/31/2011 Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability ($ thousands) Pay Type Eliminated from Pensionable Earnin2s General Members Safety Mem hers Sick Leave Cashout 1,986 718 County Contributions to Deferred Compensation - - Vacation & Admin Leave Cashout 15,228 5,508 Holiday Comp Time Cashout and Floating Holiday 1,927 498 5% Pay Increase for Retiring Department Heads - - Premium Pay of0.1% of total pay 662 239

Reduction in 12/31/2011 Employer Normal Cost ($ thousands) Pay Tvoe Eliminated from Pensionable Earnings General Members Safety Members Sick Leave Cashout 88 39 County Contributions to Deferred Compensation - - Vacation & Admin Leave Cashout 671 301 Holiday Comp Time Cashout and Floating Holiday 85 27 5% Pay Increase for Retiring Department Heads - - Premium Pav of0.1% of total pay 29 13

Shown below is the estimated impact of the changes on 2013 Pension Cost for Safety and Miscellaneous as well as projected total savings for a sample of future years. Attachment C contains a 10-year projection of the effects separately for each bargaining unit. Costs were allocated to bargaining units in proportion to the payroll percentages for each unit previously supplied by the County.

-+l l 11c1Hl \\Ullll'. St1itv !(lJ "S.t:t \I.t1v1), ( .d1fo1111.1 ')-l--f.'l-2

1nain: ():11 ~ ~-- - I t)ll(1 •Jax: (i":.(i,: 1.+~-011_=)- •web:,,\\\\ .lund-.t:-.....,1 >u.1tL".... c( n11 Chris Thomas February 21, 2013 Page 3

Reduction in 2013 Pension Cost ($ thousands) Pay Type Eliminated from Pensionable Earnings General Members Safety Members Sick Leave Cashout 215 87 County Contributions to Deferred Compensation - - Vacation & Admin Leave Cashout 1,645 665 Holiday Comp Time Cashout and Floating Holiday 208 60 5% Pay Increase for Retiring Department Heads - - Premium Pav of0.1% of total pay 73 29 Total 2,141 841

All Members: Projected Reduction in Pension Cost ($ thousands) Pay Type Eliminated from Pensionable Earnings 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 Sick Leave Cashout 301 314 326 337 350 County Contributions to Deferred Compensation -- --- Vacation & Admin Leave Cashout 2,310 2,405 2,498 2,587 2,681 Holiday Comp Time Cashout and Floating Holiday 268 279 290 300 311 5% Pav Increase for Retiring Department Heads - --- - Premium Pav of0.1% oftotal pay 102 109 116 124 133 Total 2,981 3,107 3,230 3,348 3,475

Our results are based on the December 31, 2011 valuation assumptions, which include an assumption of 4.25% for annual across-the-board pensionable salary increases. To the extent that pensionable salary increases are less than assumed the savings estimated in this study will be lower. The reduction would differ between bargaining I salary resolution groups. The actual timing of the savings shown in this letter will depend on when the SCERA actuary takes these changes into account in their valuations setting the employer and employee contribution rates.

Conclusion As illustrated above we believe the County's annual cost would decrease due to the proposed changes.

-1-11 l\orvl \, l lltll'. :-;11ik j 111 • :-;.Ill \Ltk<>. I .iltt()tW.I <)-[-1-1 ·~ rnain: (1~(f .;---10;11 •Jax: <>:lt"i ;-+.1-Kti~- •web: \'.\\\\.lurtd-.t:'~ocu1t"·'.u1n1 Chris Thomas February 21, 2013 Page4

If you have any questions, please contact me at 650-377-1618 or Mary Beth Redding at 650-377-1617.

Sincerely, ~4~ Marilyn M. Oliver, FSA, MAAA, EA, FCA Mary Elizabeth Redding, FSA, MAAA, EA Vice President & Actuary Assistant Vice President & Actuary c: John Bartel - Bartel Associates, LLC Joe D'Onofrio - Bartel Associates, LLC

o:\clients\county ofsonoma\projects\2012\reports\ba sonomaco 13-02-20 effect of pay changes on pension costs.docx

-+ l l l)orcl . \' t·11uc. :-:uitt· I Ii I "·'·"1 \ L1tl'n. 1:.i!iforni;1 '1++112 main: (,'j1) ·.;-;---Ui11) "Jax: (i:'il1 1+~-8CJ'i- "web:""" .h1rtcl-.1,,ocrnc..;.c"m ATTACHMENT A ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN PAY PRACTICES

Outlined below is a description of the impact of the elimination of various compensation elements from pensionable earnings. PEP RA changed the treatment of a number of the compensation items. Lessening (or in some cases eliminating) the savings of the changes that had been contemplated by the County. a) Eliminate County contributions to deferred compensation plans Current provisions: • % varying by bargaining I salary resolution Impact ofPEP RA: • Current and future employees: Deferred compensation not included in pensionable earnings starting January 1, 2013 Impact of elimination ofCounty contributions to deferred compensation plans on retirement earnings after PEPRA: • None b) Eliminate annual sick leave conversion to cash provisions: Current sick leave provisions: 1) Accrue 12 days per calendar year 2) Every year can convert a portion of sick leave accrual to cash or comp time depending on number of sick days taken (3 days if took 1 or fewer sick days, grading down to 0 if took 5 or more sick days) (elect in January based on prior years usage), but must maintain carryover balance of 80 hours ( 10 days) 3) At voluntary separation or retirement may cash out 25% of unused hours, but not included in pensionable earnings 4) Upon retirement may convert 100% of accumulated sick leave to credited service instead of taking cashout under item 3) Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: base on accrued and earned • New employees under PEPRA: Item 2) eliminated from pensionable earnings Impact ofelimination ofannual sick leave conversion to cash provisions after PEPRA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: o Item 2) eliminated from pensionable earnings • New employees under PEPRA: o no change c) Eliminate vacation and administrative leave cash-out provisions: Current vacation and administrative leave cash-out provisions: 1) Vacation is accrued each pay period based on service and bargaining unit I salary resolution. For SEIU and DSA schedule is: Service Davs 0-1 10 2-4 12 5-9 15 10-14 19 15-19 21 20-24 23 25+ 24

Pae 1

main:;,;'~~--_; ir~ •Jax:11-:.'1 ',.~:.,-~~ 1 '~- •web: "'"" .. l1.1rkl-.1-...11n.trl·~.u,111 ATTACHMENT A ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN PAY PRACTICES

2) Yearly administrative leave runs from 0 to 77 hours per year and varies by bargaining unit I salary resolution. 3) Total maximum accrual (carryover) capped at 280 hours (7 weeks) to 480 hours (12 weeks) depending on bargaining unit I salary resolution 4) Can convert up to 80 hours (10 days) per year to cash, but must maintain carryover balance of 80 hours (10 days)- ability to convert to cash suspended for employees for FY 2010/11 and FY 2011/12 as part of Mandatory Time Off Program 5) At termination may cash out all remaining vacation and administrative leave, but not included in pensionable earnings though can be put in deferred compensation plan Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: base on accrued and earned • New employees under PEPRA: Item 4) eliminated from pensionable earnings Impact ofelimination ofvacation and administrative leave cash-out after PEPRA • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Item 4) eliminated • New employees under PEPRA: no change d) Eliminate ability to accrue and cash out holiday compensatory time: Current holiday compensatory time provisions: 1) In certain cases compensatory time is granted in conjunction with holidays. 2) Employees in the groups below may cash out holiday compensatory time with their normal paycheck in any pay period. The remaining groups (Example: SEIU) may not. o SCLEA, SCPA, DSA, DSLEM, Sal Res BOS & DH & MGT, SCLEMA, SCPDIA 55, SCDPDAA. 3) The compensatory account is split into two parts (overtime and holiday). Generally employees may accrue up to a total of 80 hours (10 days) of total (overtime and holiday) compensatory time. 4) Time in excess of 80 hours is automatically cashed out for all employees. 5) Cashout for under 80 hours was suspended for employees for FY 2010/11 and FY 2011/12 as part of Mandatory Time Off Program. Also the 80 hour limit was increased for FY 2010/11 and FY 2011112 so the amount of automatic cash outs was reduced. 6) At termination remaining compensatory time is cashed out but not included in pensionable earnings. Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: cashout of all holiday compensatory time off elements other than floating holidays not considered pensionable earnings, floating holidays applied on earned and payable basis. • New employees under PEPRA: Items 2) and 4) eliminated from pensionable compensation Impact ofelimination ofability to accrue and cash out holiday compensatory time after PEPRA • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Items 2) and 4) eliminated • New employees under PEPRA: no change e) Eliminate all floating holiday hours: Current floating holiday cash-out provisions: 1) Yearly accrual based on bargaining unit I salary resolution 2) Subject to cashout rules for holiday compensatory time off Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: cashouts based on accrued and earned • New employees under PEPRA: Item 2) applied on earned and payable basis

Page 2

1 -l 11 P1 )1, l \·_ l 1:u, ....:·utl : ! • .' t1 \I.u, \ ~- · :li1 1 11 :1u ll.~-..\.':

n1ain:,,1-1 · ~ - Jr 1 : •Jax: )(\;+~-:.;':.~-•web:,\\'·. :,.11ill-t~~11luL· .... c1•;11 ATTACHMENT A ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN PAY PRACTICES

Impact ofelimination ofall floating holiday hours after PEPRA • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Eliminated from pensionable earnings • New employees under PEPRA: no change f) Eliminate 5% pay increase for retiring department heads upon providing 12 month or more notice Current provisions: 1) 5% pay increase for retiring department heads upon providing 12 months or more notice. Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Item 1) eliminated from pensionable earnings • New employees under PEPRA: Item 1) eliminated from pensionable earnings Impact ofelimination of5% pay increase for retiring department heads after PEPRA • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: no impact • New employees under PEPRA: no impact g) Reduce some premium pays Current provisions: Various premium pays are included in retirement pay. Types of pay vary by bargaining unit and salary resolution. Some involve % increase in hourly pay while performing particular services. Others (like bilingual) involve adding a flat amount to hourly rate. Impact ofPEP RA: • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Generally no change • New employees under PEPRA: Generally no change Impact ofelimination ofpremium pay after PEPRA. • Current employees and new hires subject to reciprocity: Depends on nature and magnitude of payment • New employees under PEPRA: Depends on nature and magnitude of payment

Page3

-1-l'. J-1.11rd \\,UIT ..'1.t[:\ i· 11 •:--.1i: \L!lt•).1. .1!i((1n1:.1')-J.-*11.~ 111ain:(1~•1 ;-·--1,1111 1 •Jax:;i:.,i ~~~-0i1~- •web:'.\\\·,;..l11rt,i-.1-..-:·1luh"---.l1l111 ATTACHMENT B PROJECTED CHANGE IN PENSIONABLE COMPENSATION BY BARGAINING UNIT

Percentage Reduction In Pensionable Earnings Due to Elimination of:

General Vacation Holiday 5%Pay Members County & Comp Increase for Sick Contributions Admin Cashout Retiring Premium Leave to Deferred Leave &Floating Department Pay of .1% Cash out Compensation Cashout Holidays Heads of Pay SEIU 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% Local 39 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% SCPA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% SCDPDAA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% SC LEMA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.30% 0 0.10% SC LEA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% SCP DIA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.10% 0 0.10% WCE 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% ESC 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% Salary Resolution 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.50% 0 0.10% Total General 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.29% 0 0.10%

Safety Members SCLEMA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.30% 0 0.10% SC LEA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% DSA 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.20% 0 0.10% DSLEM 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.30% 0 0.10% Salary Resolution 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.50% 0 0.10% Total Safety 0.30% 0 2.30% 0.21% 0 0.10%

Pae 4 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

Projected Reduction In Employer Pension Cost Due to Elimination of: ($thousands) General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred & Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cash out sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SEIU Calendar Year: 2013 105 - 808 70 - 36 2014 107 - 823 72 - 37 2015 109 - 838 73 - 38 2016 111 - 854 74 - 39 2017 113 - 870 76 - 41 2018 115 - 885 77 - 42 2019 117 - 901 78 - 43 2020 120 - 918 80 - 45 2021 122 - 936 81 - 47 2022 125 - 955 83 - 48

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay Local 39 Calendar Year: 2013 8 - 64 6 - 3 2014 9 - 65 6 - 3 2015 9 - 67 6 - 3 2016 9 - 68 6 - 3 2017 9 - 69 6 - 3 2018 9 - 70 6 - 3 2019 9 - 72 6 - 3 2020 10 - 73 6 - 4 2021 10 - 74 6 - 4 2022 10 - 76 7 - 4 Page 5

+I; h111l! \'.t·11\l1·.~n1:, ', l ·~.t:i \.f.1tl·<'. 1 1~!i\'!'i!.1 ·.qi.")

main: r1 ~'. · ;--- -1 (, 111 ' •fax::)~; 1 ~-+.~1-S 1 1:.: -· •web: ·\ '" ·.1. .:. ,, ~l '.-.1-.:-:.· ,, u:'--·-.,:( q11 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cash out Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SCPA Calendar Year: 2013 6 - 46 4 - 2 2014 6 - 47 4 - 2 2015 6 - 48 4 - 2 2016 6 - 48 4 - 2 2017 6 - 49 4 - 2 2018 7 - 50 4 - 2 2019 7 - 51 4 - 2 2020 7 - 52 5 - 2 2021 7 - 53 5 - 2 2022 7 - 54 5 - ".)

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cash out Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SCDPDAA Calendar Year: 2013 3 - 25 2 - 1 2014 3 - 25 2 - 1 2015 3 - 25 2 - 1 2016 3 - 26 2 - 1 2017 3 - 26 2 - 1 2018 3 - 27 2 - 1 2019 4 - 27 2 - 1 2020 4 - 28 2 - 1 2021 4 - 28 2 - 1 2022 4 - 29 3 - 1

Page 6

~~ '. H(JJl·l \·.1i::i.. >'.t!:~ l 'i •:-...,;; · i.til '. l .tlil1•1:1u rq~1,~

7 1nain:(i_;1\ ~-- .\:,,1:: •Jax:(i1 1 ' ;~-~-~; 11 :-1- •web:\·\ '-1ur1d-_i ... -d1c!.1•,··.l11Ji1 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SCLEMA Calendar Year: 2013 0 - 2 0 - 0 2014 0 - 2 0 - 0 2015 0 - 2 0 - 0 2016 0 - 2 0 - 0 2017 0 - 2 0 - 0 2018 0 - 2 0 - 0 2019 0 - 2 0 - 0 2020 0 - 3 0 - 0 2021 0 - 3 0 - 0 2022 0 - 3 0 - 0

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1%of Cashout sation Cash out Holiday Heads Pay SCLEA Calendar Year: 2013 5 - 38 3 - 2 2014 5 - 39 3 - 2 2015 5 - 40 3 - 2 2016 5 - 41 4 - 2 2017 5 - 42 4 - 2 2018 6 - 42 4 - 2 2019 6 - 43 4 - 2 2020 6 - 44 4 - 2 2021 6 - 45 4 - 2 2022 6 - 46 4 - 3

Page 7

~!\ !·;(1! j \\ i!i'.l, ·,_1!". ) ,j ·~~.1:~ \f.1L1l_i :h,t\fll!.;IJ~-.f. 1 :~

main:,1-·•1 ',- I(1 1 1'1 •fax:r,-· 11 <~~-s, ;- •web: \'".\\.ii.in,; 1~ .11:.t1 ...:-...l!>!11 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred & Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SCPDIA Calendar Year: 2013 1 - 6 0 - 0 2014 1 - 6 0 - 0 2015 1 - 6 0 - 0 2016 1 - 7 0 - 0 2017 1 - 7 0 - 0 2018 1 - 7 0 - 0 2019 1 - 7 0 - 0 2020 1 - 7 0 - 0 2021 1 - 7 0 - 0 2022 1 - 7 0 - 0

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cash out sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay WCE Calendar Year: 2013 4 - 32 3 - 1 2014 4 - 33 3 - 1 2015 4 - 33 3 - 2 2016 4 - 34 3 - 2 2017 5 - 35 3 - 2 2018 5 - 35 3 - 2 2019 5 - 36 3 - 2 2020 5 - 36 3 - 2 2021 5 - 37 3 - 2 2022 5 - 38 3 - 2

Page 8

+11 i)ufL·l \'.Llll!c_~tllll l(:! •>1:: \i.1ll'11_! .dit.orui.,r1-+--!- 11 ~

main:~1; 1 = ~---lc 1 •( 1 •fax:(1:::;,, )_~;-.1 1 i-,- •web:'\',\'-\ L.1:1~-l-1--~('tut1·-. u111 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay ESC Calendar Yr. 2013 16 - 123 11 - 5 2014 16 - 126 11 - 6 2015 17 - 128 11 - 6 2016 17 - 130 11 - 6 2017 17 - 133 12 - 6 2018 18 - 135 12 - 6 2019 18 - 137 12 - 7 2020 18 - 140 12 - 7 2021 19 - 143 12 - 7 2022 19 - 146 13 - 7

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred & Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay Salary Resolution Calendar Yr. 2013 65 - 501 109 - 22 2014 67 - 511 111 - 23 2015 68 - 520 113 - 24 2016 69 - 530 115 - 24 2017 70 - 540 117 - 25 2018 72 - 549 119 - 26 2019 73 - 559 122 - 27 2020 74 - 569 124 - 28 2021 76 - 581 126 - 29 2022 77 - 592 129 - 30

Page9 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

General County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred & Admin Cash out Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1%of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay TOTAL Calendar Year: 2013 215 - 1,645 208 - 73 2014 219 - 1,676 212 - 75 2015 223 - 1,708 216 - 78 2016 227 - 1,740 220 - 80 2017 231 - 1,771 224 - 83 2018 235 - 1,802 228 - 86 2019 239 - 1,835 232 - 89 2020 244 - 1,869 237 - 92 2021 249 - 1,906 241 - 95 2022 254 - 1,945 246 - 98

Page 10

+!'. l..;11r,] \\~1!th_·_:-:l1l!l 11'11 •>t11\lt1lt,_1 .:li((1111ut1.+-}.1l_2

main::,'11 1 ~,----11, 1 \·1 •jax:(1-:.' 1 _;+~-.'~1·_:;.- •web:\\\\\\_li.1rh"l-_1 ..... ~~1(l.tk .... \(•i 1 1 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

SC LEMA Calendar Year: 2013 3 - 24 3 - 1 2014 3 - 25 3 - 1 2015 3 - 26 3 - 1 2016 3 - 26 3 - 1 2017 3 - 27 3 - 1 2018 4 - 27 4 - 1 2019 4 - 28 4 - 1 2020 4 - 28 4 - 1 2021 4 - 29 4 - 1 2022 4 - 29 4 - 1

Safety County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred & Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay SCLEA Calendar Year: 2013 47 - 358 31 - 16 2014 48 - 366 32 - 16 2015 49 - 375 33 - 17 2016 50 - 384 33 - 17 2017 51 - 391 34 - 18 2018 52 - 398 35 - 19 2019 53 - 405 35 - 19 2020 53 - 410 36 - 20 2021 54 - 417 36 - 21 2022 55 - 424 37 - 21

Page 11

.+11 H.ill \f.tli,'I\_ t d!i1J•·:;i 1 ''-+-~·- _., n1ain:r,:=i1j ~--:_11;1 11 : •jax:c1~11 ~-~;_;-)11;- •web: ,\"., ... l .tncl-.t:-"r\lurl~.t1iu1 ATTACHMENT C 10-YEAR PROJECTION OF CHANGE IN PENSION COST BY BARGAINING UNIT

Safety County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay DSA Calendar Year: 2013 33 - 256 22 - 11 2014 34 - 262 23 - 12 2015 35 - 268 23 - 12 2016 36 - 274 24 - 12 2017 36 - 279 24 - 13 2018 37 - 284 25 - 13 2019 38 - 289 25 - 14 2020 38 - 293 25 - 14 2021 39 - 298 26 - 15 2022 40 - 303 26 - 15

Safety County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cash out sation Cash out Holiday Heads Pay DSLEM Calendar Year: 2013 3 - 27 3 - 1 2014 4 - 27 4 - 1 2015 4 - 28 4 - 1 2016 4 - 29 4 - 1 2017 4 - 29 4 - 1 2018 4 - 30 4 - 1 2019 4 - 30 4 - 1 2020 4 - 31 4 - 1 2021 4 - 31 4 - 2 2022 4 - 32 4 - 2

Page 12

1 1 4-11 i~1,1vl '1\,·lt1l·, :~tt!h_ ] \[ •~1:1 'Ltil(•_ I .:lit.c1n;it tJ-!---V ~

n1ain:(1~' 1 ,,---!1 11111 •Jax:(.;• 1 ~-~1-6 1 :1·- •web:·\ 1\\ lu1i-1l-.1·--•11·u11:-..

Safety County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay Salary Resolution Calendar Year: 2013 0 - 0 0 - 0 2014 0 - 0 0 - 0 2015 0 - 0 0 - 0 2016 0 - 0 0 - 0 2017 0 - 0 0 - 0 2018 0 - 0 0 - 0 2019 0 - 0 0 - 0 2020 0 - 0 0 - 0 2021 0 - 0 0 - 0 2022 0 - 0 0 - 0

Safety County Members Contribu- Holiday 5%Pay tions to Vacation Comp Increase for Premium Sick Deferred &Admin Cashout Retiring Pay of Leave Com pen- Leave &Floating Department .1% of Cashout sation Cashout Holiday Heads Pay TOTAL- Calendar Year: 2013 87 - 665 60 - 29 2014 89 - 681 61 - 30 2015 91 - 697 63 - 31 2016 93 - 713 64 - 32 2017 95 - 727 66 - 34 2018 96 - 739 67 - 35 2019 98 - 752 68 - 36 2020 99 - 762 69 - 37 2021 IOI - 775 70 - 38 2022 103 - 788 71 - 40

Page 13 January 28, 2013

Chris Thomas Assistant County Administrator County Adminstrator's Office County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Re: Impact of Discontinuance of3.03%/3.00% Contributions for Future Employees covered by PEPRA benefits

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Effective January 1, 2013, the additional contributions paid by ,members towards the increase in the unfunded actuarial accrued liability for the enhanced retirement benefit formulas (3% at 60 and 3% at 50) was discontinued for new hires covered by the PEPRA formulas. We have been asked to estimate the impact of this discontinuance. ..

Summary of Changes Currently the County General and Safety employees contribute 3.03% and 3.00% of pay respectively towards the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) created when the 3% at 60 and 3% at 50 formulas were put in place. These payments are expected to last through 6/30/2024 for General members and through no later than 6/30/2023 for Safety members.

Starting January 1, 2013 the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) mandates reduced retirement benefits and member contribution rates of at least one-half normal cost for most employees hired by the County who were not previously members of a reciprocal public retirement system. We have been asked to calculate the impact on contribution rates ofremaining members ifthe current 3.03% and 3.00% contributions are permanently discontinued for new hires subject to PEPRA.

Impact Calculations have been performed based on the data used in SCERA's December 31, 2011 actuarial valuation, on assumptions and methods used in that valuation and on the additional assumptions listed in Attachment A that were. necessary for this special costing.

Shown on the next page is a projection of foregone contributions from January 1, 2013 from new hires subject to coverage under the new PEPRA formulas.

! 11 Btirll \;,·t·ntK, ~ulrt: li1j •:

Projection of Foregone Contributions (thousands) General Safety (through (through Year 6/30/2024) 6/30/2023) Total 2013 $440 $80 $520 2014 $900 $170 $1,070 2015 $1,390 $270 $1,660 2016 $1,900 $390 $2,290· 2017 $2,470 $520 $2,990 2018 $3,080 $680 $3,760 2019 $3,710 $840 $4,550 2020 $4,370 $1,040 $5,410 2021 $5,040 $1,220 $6,260 2022 $5,730 $1,410 $7,J40 2023 $6,460 $810 $7,270 2024 $3,600 $0 $3,600

Shown below are increases in contribution rates that would be necessary from remaining members (current employees and new hires anticipated to enter from reciprocal systems and not covered by PEPRA formulas) to compensate for the foregone contributions. Th~ increas_e required for General members is higher than the increase for Safety members. The higher valuation turnover assumption for General members and lower percentage of new General hires assumed to enter with reciprocity result in more hires covered by PEPRA, and thus not contributing, arid also in fewer employees to make up the resulting loss of contributions.

Increase in Contribution Rate for Remaining Members as of July 1, 2013 (thousands)

General Safety Present Value of Foregone Contributions $23,290 $4,570 Present Value of Future Payroll for Remaining Members $1,406,450 $445,070 Required Increase in Member Contributions (%of pay) 1.66% 1.03%

Consistent with the methodology and duration used to calculate the current 3.03% and 3.00% contribution rates, these additional contribution rates would apply to current employees and new hires anticipated to enter from reciprocal systems and not covered by PEPRA formulas from 7/1/2013 through 6/30/2024 for General members and from 7/1/2013 through 6/30/2023 for Safety members.

111 Bon:l \\\:ntll, Sulk 1111 •S;111 \L1t1..o, < ,1hfl)r11i;1 (q.J!12

main:<).1n ;~ 1 -JocL1tl' ..... un11 Chris Thomas January 28, 2013 Page 3

If you have any questions, please contact me at 650-377-1618 or Mary Beth Redding at 650-377-1617.

Sincerely,

Marilyn M. Oliver, FSA, MAAA, EA, FCA Mary Elizabefh1_\edding, FSA, MAAA, EA Vice President & Actuary Assistant Vi9e,,.President & Actuary c: John Bartel - Bartel Associates, LLC

·I 11 !lord \n·nuc·. Suire· 1111 •S.111 \l:itn>. C;ilifomi.1'}1111: main: C1?if l _)---1 (11 H l •Jax: (i.=;11 )-f.=)-Bi 1:;- •web:\\\\ w.lurtl·l-.t:'s< icutl'~.( 1n11 ATTACHMENT A ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS

Percentage of New Hires Not Covered by the Reduced Retirement Benefit Formulas Mandated by PEPRA: Effective January 1, 2013 PEPRA reduced benefit formulas generally cover new members of SC ERA who are not entitled to reciprocity. We assumed that 10% of General new employees and 20% of Safety new employees will fall in this category. However, as time passes, some new hires entitled to reciprocity will have already been covered by PEPRA's reduced benefit formulas under their prior employer - for instance if their first membership in a California retirement system covered by PEPRA started on or after January 1, 2013. To take this into account we have gradually reduced the 10% and 20% assumptions to 5% and 10% over the next 5 years, to 2.5% and 5% over the succeeding 5 :years, and to 0% at the end of 20 years

o:\clients\county of sonoma\projects\2012\reports\ba sonomaco 13-01-28 discontinuance ual contributions pepra.docx

111 l\mcl \yrnnc·. Suite [Ill •S;in \f;ttc<>. Cilif.,rni;i lJ.J.Jt12

main: (J ..177- l (JCi() •Jax: ri:1t11 )-f.;-8! i:;- •web:\\ '.1. 1.1. .lur1d-,1~;-:

100 Montgomery Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-4308 T 415.263.8283 www.segalco.com

VIA E-MAIL AND USPS DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH CLIENT

November 20, 2014

Ms. Julie Wyne Retirement Administrator Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association 433 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 94503-1069

Re: Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Potential Impact oflmplementing the Employer Cost Savings Provisions in the 2013 Pension Reform Act

Dear Julie:

We have been asked by the County to prepare an illustration of the potential employer cost savings that may be realized by the County associated with the implementation of certain changes introduced by the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of2013 (CalPEPRA).

Background

There are two sources of employer cost savings associated with the implementation of the changes introduced by CalPEPRA: (1) reduction in the total normal cost as members in the Legacy plans are replaced gradually by members enrolled in the future in the CalPEPRA plans and (2) the 50:50 sharing of the normal cost between the employees and the County for the Legacy plans.

The contribution rates in our December 31, 2013 valuation are broken down by plan between General County, General Court, General Valley of the Moon, Safety County and Safety Valley of the Moon. Included in the General County's contribution rates are members from other entities operating within the County and participating in SCERA. For the purposes of this study, we have continued to include members from those other entities in the calculation of the potential employer cost savings that may be realized by the County associated with the implementation of CalPEPRA.

Benefits, Compensation and HR Consulting. Member of The Segal Group. Offices throughout the United States and Canada Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page2

Results

Due to a reduction in the level of benefits, the employer's normal costs under the CalPEPRA plans are lower than those under the Legacy plans. The future employer aggregate normal cost rates calculated over both of the Legacy and the CalPEPRA plans are projected to decrease as members in the Legacy plans are gradually replaced by members in the CalPEPRA plans. In addition to the CalPEPRA members reported in the December 31, 2013 valuation, we have estimated the potential employer normal cost savings by assuming that the payroll for the CalPEPRA plans can be modeled as follows: (1) projecting the total $312,807,000 December 31, 2013 combined General and Safety County payroll using the 4% annual increase used in the valuation to predict annual wage growth for amortizing the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) and (2) subtracting the projected closed group payroll for the Legacy plans according to the assumptions used in the December 31, 2013 valuation to anticipate termination, retirement (both service and disability) and other exits from active employment. The projected fiscal year payroll is calculated by taking the average of the two projected calendar year payrolls that make up that fiscal year.

In addition, the future employer aggregate normal cost rates are projected to decrease because we have included the employer cost savings as if employees from the Legacy plans agreed to share (on a negotiated basis) the normal cost on a 50:50 basis with the employer starting on January 1, 2016. A summary of the current employer normal cost rates before and after the application of the 50:50 CalPEPRA rule is provided in the table below.

Before 50:50 Sharing of After 50:50 Sharing of Normal Normal Cost Cost General Plan A Safety Plan A General Plan A Safety Plan A Employees 8.93%(l) 8.69%(l) 10.64% 13.42% Employer 12.33% 18.12% 10.64% 13.42% Total Normal Cost 21.26% 26.81% 21.28%(2) 26.84%(2)

(l) The rates shown in the above table have been calculated in the aggregate using the entry age based member rates for all employees covered in the Legacy plans and weighting them by payroll. They are different.from the rates shown on page v of the December 31, 2013 valuation because those rates are based on the average entry ages and include an additional 3.03% and 3.00% ofpayroll for General and Safety members, respectively, towards the UAAL. 2 < l The total normal cost is slightly higher under the 50:50 sharing ofnormal cost due to the refundability ofthe higher employees' normal cost rate.

In order to illustrate the long-term savings from (1) and (2), we have revised our earlier illustration of employer contribution rates, UAAL and funded percentage provided in our letter dated April 29, 2014 to only include the information for the County.

As of December 31, 2013, there were $206.0 million in deferred investment gains. In this letter,

5341226v1/05012.113 Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page 3 we have projected the decrease in the employer's contribution rate in the next several years as the County's portion of those gains are recognized as part of the Board's asset smoothing method, assuming again that the Association earns an annual return of 7.50% on a market value basis beginning with January 1, 2014 and that all the deferred investment gains would be utilized to offset the $469 million in the Negative Contingency Reserve and therefore only used to reduce the Association's UAAL. Consistent with the UAAL allocation used in our December 31, 2013 valuation, the deferred investment gains allocated to the County were based on the County proportion of payroll to the total payroll as of December 31, 2013.

Again, note that the primary purpose for preparing the illustration is to reflect future changes in the employer contribution rates due to the 50:50 sharing of the normal cost between the employees and the County for the Legacy plans and the lower normal cost under the CalPEPRA benefit plans. For that reason, we have not reflected impacts from sunsets of the additional 3.03% and 3.00% member UAAL contributions from General County (including the Court) and Safety County members, respectively. Moreover, we have assumed that the additional member contribution will continue even after the Association is expected to be over 100% funded starting with the December 31, 2025 valuation. This is in contrast to our inclusion of the potential cost impact from the CalPEPRA benefits because those savings will be recognized (gradually) starting in 2013 while the impact from the sunsets of the additional contributions will not take place until towards the end of the 20-year period included in our projection.

Note that, as a result of CalPEPRA, the employer is required to continue to contribute the normal cost even after the Association is expected to be over 100% funded, at least until the funded percentage exceeds 120%. This is shown in the projections starting with 2025 where the contributions are equal to the normal cost. This statutory requirement overrules the Association's funding policy provision that would amortize surplus over a 30-year period.

Also, note that there was an increase in the employer rate for the December 31, 2012 valuation of 1.79% of payroll as a result of the assumption changes adopted by the Board. According to the Association's May 19, 2011 Actuarial Funding Policy, a change greater than 0.50% of payroll due to assumption changes should be phased-in over a period of three years. Since this phase-in adjustment is made by the staff, the rates shown in the projection have not been adjusted for the phase-in.

Other Considerations

Projections, by their nature, are not a guarantee of future results. The modeling projections are intended to serve as estimates of future financial outcomes that are based on the information available to us at the time the modeling is undertaken and completed, and the agreed-upon assumptions and methodologies described herein. Emerging results may differ significantly if the actual experience proves to be different from these assumptions or if alternative methodologies are used. Actual experience may differ due to such variables as demographic experience, the economy, stock market performance, and the regulatory environment. The projections are based on the actuarial assumptions and census data used in our December 31, 2013 valuation report for the Association. Future experience is expected to

5341226vl/05012. l I 3 Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page4 follow all of the assumptions, except as noted above. This study was prepared under the supervision of Andy Yeung, ASA, MAAA, FCA, EA.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Angelo, FSA, MAAA, FCA, EA Andy Yeung, ASA, MAAA, FCA, EA Senior Vice President and Actuary Vice President and Associate Actuary

MYM/ Enclosures

5341226vl/05012.113 Exhibit 1: Projected Employer Rates - County Only Assuming 7.5% Annual Return on Market Value Basis Beginning January I, 2014 (Before Rcnecling Sunset of Additional Member Contributions and Phase-in of the Contribution Rate lmpacl of the Assumption Changes from the December 31, 2012 valuation)

25%

20% -+-Rates Before 50:50 Cost Sharing

_,._Rates After 50:50 Cost Sharing I 15% !:. 0 E ~ ~ 10%

0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Valuation Date (12131)

Based on 12/31/2013 Projection Valuation Date (12/31) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 {a) Aggregate Employer Rate before 50:50 Sharing of Normal Cost for Legacy Plans 20.6% 18.8% 17.4% 15.5% 14.1% 13.6% 13.2% 12.9% 12.6% 12.3% 12.0% 11.7% 9.8% 9.6% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% {b) Aggregate Employer Rate after 50:50 Sharing of Normal Cost for Legacy Plans 19.5% 16.8% 15.5% 13.7% 12.4% 12.1% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.5%

Fiscal Year 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 34/35 Savings from Replacing Members in the Legacy Plans with Members in CalPEPRA Plans (c) Reduction of Aggregate Employer Rate Provided in (a) 1.8% 1.4% 1.9% 1.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% (dl Reduction in EmoloyerContributions ($thousands\ 6,212 5,025 7,092 5,435 2,019 1,679 1,310 1,362 1.417 1.474 1,532 10,094 1.105 1.149 598 622 1,293 672 699 Savings from 50:50 Sharing of Normal Cost Between the Employees and the County for the Legacy Plans (e) Reduction in Aggregate Employer Rate ((a)-(b)) 1.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% (f) Reduction in Employer Contributions ($thousands) 3,650 6,902 6,819 6,719 6,599 6,056 5,878 5,677 5,450 4,723 4.421 4,087 3,719 3,315 2,873 2,988 3,108 1,939 2,017 2,097 Projected Payroll($ thousands) 331,822 345,095 358,898 373,255 388,185 403,712 419,862 436,658 454,125 472,290 491,182 510,827 531,260 552,511 574,612 597,598 621,504 646,364 672,218 699,108

Note: The savings in fiscal year 2015/2016 provided in (e) reflects the savings from the 50:50 sharing of the normal cost for half of that fiscal year since the implmentation of the 50:50 sharing of the normal cost is assumed to begin on January 1, 2016.

5341226v1/05012.113 SEGAL CONSULTING Exhibit 2: Projected UAAL - County Only Assuming 7.5% Annual Return on Market Value Basis Beginning January 1, 2014

$600

$500 ·------

$400

c~ $200 ~ '§ c $100

-$100

·$200

·$300 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Valuation Date (12/31)

Based on 12/31/2013 Projection Valuation Date (12/31) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 UAAL ($ millions) 412 344 286 201 136 117 101 85 68 49 29 6 -20 -48 -74 -98 -124 -152 -184 -218

5341226v1/05012.113 SEGAL CONSULTING Exhibit 3: Projected Funded Percentage - County Only Assuming 7.5% Annual Return on Market Value Basis Beginning January 1, 2014

110%

105%

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Valuation Date (12/31)

Based on 12131/2013 Projection Valuation Date (12131) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Funded Percentage 82.9% 86.3% 89.1% 92.6% 95.2% 96.0% 96.6% 97.2% 97.8% 98.5% 99.1% 99.8% 100.6% 101.4% 102.1% 102.8% 103.5% 104.3% 105.3% 106.4%

5341226v1/05012.113 SEGAL CONSULTING *Segal Consulting

100 Montgomery Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-4308 T 415.263.8283 www.segalco.com

VIA E-MAIL AND USPS DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH CLIENT

November 20, 2014

Ms. Julie Wyne Retirement Administrator Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association 433 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 95403-1069

Re: Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Accelerated Funding of UAAL by the County

Dear Julie:

We understand that the County has expressed interest in contributing additional amounts so that they would be able to reduce their future Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) payments to SCERA. We have been requested by your office to outline some options that may be considered by the Board as methods to reflect those additional amounts when we develop the County's UAAL contribution rate requirements in future valuations.

There are two broad categories of options that may be considered by SCERA. They differ primarily in whether the additional contribution amounts would be (a) used to immediately buy down the County's UAAL and UAAL contribution rates or (b) held back from the current UAAL as an advance contribution so that those amounts, with future investment earnings, could be applied at the County's discretion against future contributions. In particular, they could be used to reduce the effective UAAL payment periods for the County by applying the advance contribution at the end of the periods.

Since we have not been provided with specific amount of additional contributions that the County would consider paying to SCERA, we have prepared the following illustrative cost impacts assuming that additional contributions of $10 million were paid on December 31, 2013. Of course we would revise our calculations based on the amount and the date of any additional contributions actually made. Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page2

CALCULATION OF THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF SCERA'S UAAL

The UAAL in our December 31, 2013 valuation is broken down between General County, General Court, General Valley of the Moon, Safety County and Safety Valley of the Moon. Included in the General County's UAAL are members from other entities operating within the County and participating in SCERA. For the purposes of this study, we have continued to include members from those other entities in the calculation of the impact of accelerated funding ofUAAL by the County. The sum of the General County UAAL layers and the Safety County UAAL layers on pages 70 and 71 of our December 31, 2013 valuation is equal to $412.5 million.I

IMMEDIATE BUY DOWN IN THE UAAL CONTRIBUTION RATES

Under this option, the additional contributions would be used to immediately reduce both the County's UAAL and the related UAAL contribution rates. The additional contributions would be allocated in proportion to the outstanding balances in the County's current UAAL layers and amortized using those corresponding periods. (This is similar to the approach we used when the County issued Pension Obligation Bonds and provided SCERA with those proceeds several years ago.)

If the County were to make an additional UAAL contribution of $10 million, there would be a reduction in the County's contribution rate and annual contribution amount of 0.25% and $779,000, respectively. The current contribution rates determined in the December 31, 2013 valuation would be revised as follows: Before $10 million in After $10 million in Additional Contributions Additional Contributions(!) Estimated Estimated Annual Annual 2 Alternative One Rate Amount( ) Rate Amount(2) General Plan A Normal Cost 12.33% $27,282 12.33% $27,282 UAAL 7.06% $15,622 6.82% $15,091 Total 19.39% $42,904 19.15% $42,373 General Plan B Normal Cost 7.39% $1,736 7.39% $1,736 UAAL 7.06% $1,659 6.82% $1,602 Total 14.45% $3,395 14.21% $3,338

Note: Table footnotes are on the next page.

1 It should be noted that $412.5 million is before any adjustments to reflect that County General members have agreed to contribute 3.03% ofpayrollji-om July I, 2004 to June 30, 2024 while County Safety members have agreed to contribute 3.00% ofpayroll effective February I, 2005 to reduce the UAAL.

5340035vl/05012.105 Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page 3

Before $10 million in After $10 million in Additional Contributions Additional Contributions(!) Estimated Estimated Annual Annual Alternative One Rate AmountC2l Rate AmountC2l Safety Plan A Normal Cost 18.12% $11,960 18.12% $11,960 UAAL 8.72% $5,756 8.44% $5,571 Total 26.84% $17,716 26.56% $17,531 Safety Plan B Normal Cost 11.09% $226 11.09% $226 UAAL 8.72% $178 8.44% $172 Total 19.81% $404 19.53% $398 All Plans Combined Normal Cost 13.17% $41,204 13.17% $41,204 3 3 UAAL 7.42% $23,215C ) 7.17% $22,436( ) Total 20.59% $64,419 20.34% $63,640

Ol The $10 million in additional contributions is allocated proportionally among the remaining bases ofthe UAAL layers as ofDecember 31, 2013. 2 < l Dollar amounts are in thousands and are based on December 31, 2013 projected annual compensation for the County in each ofthe following plans: General Plan A $221,269 General Plan B 23,493 Safety Plan A 66,004 Safety Plan B 2.041 Total $312,807 3 < l UAAL contribution amounts have been adjusted to reflect 3.03% and 3.00% UAAL contributions agreed to be paid by General and Safety members, respectively, after those amounts are adjusted further for refundability.

In Attachment A, we have provided an amortization schedule before the $10 million in additional contributions. In Attachment B, we have provided an amortization schedule after the $10 million in additional contributions. In Attachment C, we have provided a graphic depiction of how the $10 million would be used to reduce the County's future contributions to the UAAL.

As for additional amortization amounts other than $10 million, the County and SCERA would generally be able to estimate the resultant contribution rate impact by prorating the rate adjustment calculated with the $10 million amount.

5340035vl/05012.105 Ms. Julie Wyne November 20, 2014 Page4

REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE UAAL PAYMENT PERIODS

While the above alternative would reduce the County's UAAL, it does not result in shortening the effective period over which the future UAAL payments would have to be made by the County. This is because additional contribution amounts are immediately used to adjust the County's UAAL rates over the entire length of the current amortization periods. In order to shorten the UAAL payment periods, the additional payments would need to be applied at the end of the amortization periods. If this is the desired result then the Board may want to explore whether an account could be set up for the County to track these additional payments. While funds in that account would be available at the County's discretion to reduce their UAAL contribution requirement in the current year, we presume that such funds could also be used to pay their UAAL contribution in any future year, including the later years of the current payment schedule.

However, before SCERA offers this account-based approach to the County, they should be provided with all the pros and cons of having that account, including the crediting to that account of the actual market gains/losses. (As it is our understanding that there is no sunset date to the 3.00% UAAL contributions agreed to be made by the Safety members, the County may also need to include that aspect as part of its deliberations.)

Under this approach, if the County were to make an additional contribution of $10 million, we estimate that the County would be able to eliminate two full years and one partial year of UAAL funding obligation at the tail end of the amortization period. In Attachment D, we have provided an amortization schedule after the $10 million in additional contributions and assuming that the 7 .50% expected annual return earned by SCERA on the $10 million would be used to pay-off the County's UAAL contributions in the later years. In Attachment E, we have provided a graphic depiction of how the $10 million would be used to reduce the County's future contributions to the UAAL.

We are members of the American Academy of Actuaries and we meet the qualification requirements to render the actuarial opinion contained herein.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Angelo, FSA, MAAA, FCA Andy Yeung, ASA, MAAA, FCA Senior Vice President and Actuary Vice President and Associate Actuary

MYM/bqb

cc: Cathy Austin Kelly Jenkins

5340035vl/05012.105 Attachment A

Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability Amortization Schedule for County Members before $10 Million in Additional Contributions (Based on December 31, 2013 Valuation) Annual Interest Rate: 7.50% Annual Payroll Inflation: 4.00%

Beginning End of Year Annual Interest Principal of Year Year Balance Payment Paid Paid Balance 1 $ 412,495,000 $ 32,516,714 $ 29,841,848 $ 2,674,867 $ 409,820, 133 2 409,820, 133 33,817,383 29,597,422 4,219,961 405,600, 172 3 405,600, 172 35,170,078 29,235,361 5,934,717 399,665,455 4 399,665,455 36,576,881 28,742,871 7,834,010 391,831,445 5 391,831,445 38,039,957 28,106,039 9,933,918 381,897,527 6 381,897,527 39,561,555 27,309,742 12,251,813 369,645,714 7 369,645,714 41,144,017 26,337,553 14,806,464 354,839,251 8 354,839,251 42,789,778 25, 171,634 17,618,144 337,221,107 9 337,221,107 44,501,369 23,792,620 20,708,748 316,512,358 10 316,512,358 46,281,423 22,179,506 24,101,918 292,410,440 11 292,410,440 48,132,680 20,309,505 27,823,175 264,587,265 12 264,587,265 50,057,988 18, 157,916 31,900,072 232,687' 193 13 232,687, 193 52,060,307 15,697,965 36,362,342 196,324,851 14 196,324,851 54,142,719 12,900,647 41,242,073 155,082,778 15 155,082, 778 53,184,480 9,839,768 43,344,712 111,738,066 16 111,738,066 45,742,006 6,839,603 38,902,403 72,835,663 17 72,835,663 43,439,222 3,999,489 39,439,733 33,395,930 18 33,395,930 27,507,095 1,578, 159 25,928,936 7,466,995 19 7,466,995 13,427,369 107,744 13,319,626 (5,852,631) 20 (5,852,631) (6,086,562) (233,931) (5,852,631)

Total $ 772,006,459 $ 359,511,459 $ 412,495,000

Note: Results may be slightly off due to rounding

Note that annual payments include UAAL contributions from both the employer and the employees.

5340035vl/05012.105 SEGAL CONSULTING Attachment B

Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability Amortization Schedule for County Members after $10 Million in Additional Contributions (Based on December 31, 2013 Valuation) Annual Interest Rate: 7.50% Annual Payroll Inflation: 4.00%

Beginning End of Year Annual Interest Principal of Year Year Balance Payment Paid Paid Balance 1 $ 402,495,000 $ 31,728,407 $ 29, 118,401 $ 2,610,007 $ 399,884,993 2 399,884,993 32,997,543 28,879,901 4,117,642 395,767,35 I 3 395,767,351 34,317,445 28,526,619 5,790,826 389,976,525 4 389,976,525 35,690,143 28,046,070 7,644,073 382,332,452 5 382,332,452 37,117,749 27,424,677 9,693,071 372,639,380 6 372,639,380 38,602,459 26,647,687 11,954,772 360,684,608 7 360,684,608 40,146,557 25,699,068 14,447,489 346,237'120 8 346,237,120 41,752,419 24,561,416 17,191,004 329,046, 116 9 329,046,116 43,422,516 23,215,836 20,206,681 308,839,435 10 308,839,435 45,159,417 21,641,830 23,517,587 285,321,848 11 285,321,848 46,965,793 19,817,165 27, 148,628 258,173,220 12 258, 173,220 48,844,425 17,717,739 31, 126,686 227,046,535 13 227,046,535 50,798,202 15,317,428 35,480,774 191,565,760 14 191,565,760 52,830,130 12,587,927 40,242,203 151,323,557 15 151,323,557 51,895,I 19 9,601,257 42,293,862 109,029,695 16 109,029,695 44,633,086 6,673,828 37,959,259 71,070,437 17 71,070,437 42,386,203 3,902,566 38,483,636 32,586,801 18 32,586,801 26,840,486 1,539,928 25,300,558 7,286,243 19 7,286,243 13,102,063 105, 145 12,996,918 (5,710,676) 20 (5,710,676) (5,938,932) (228,257) (5, 710,676)

Total $ 753,291,231 $ 350, 796,231 $ 402,495,000

Note: Results may be slightly off due to rounding

Note that annual payments include UAAL contributions from both the employer and the employees.

5340035vl/05012.105 SEGAL CONSULTING Attachment C

Comparison of Annual UAAL Payments for the County under Current Amortization Schedule with UAAL Payments after Additonal $10 Million Contributions (Payments Starting with Year Following the December 31, 2013 Valuation)

--After Additional $10M Contributions $50,000 -current Amortization Schedule

$40,000 0 0 E ~ $30,000 E 1;' 0.. ca $20,000 ------~------____,.,___ _ ::I c: c: <( $10,000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

($10,000)

Year

5340035vl/05012.l 05 SEGAL CONSULTING Attachment D

Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability Amortization Schedule for County Members (Based on December 31, 2013 Valuation) Annual Interest Rate: 7.50% Annual Payroll Inflation: 4.00%

Beginning End of Year Annual Interest Principal of Year Year Balance Payment Paid Paid Balance 1 $ 412,495,000 $ 32,516,714 $ 29,841,848 $ 2,674,867 $ 409,820, 133 2 409,820,133 33,817,383 29,597,422 4,219,961 405,600, 172 3 405,600, 172 35,170,078 29,235,361 5,934,717 399,665,455 4 399,665,455 36,576,881 28,742,871 7,834,010 391,831,445 5 391,831,445 38,039,957 28,106,039 9,933,918 381,897,527 6 381,897,527 39,561,555 27,309,742 12,251,813 369,645,714 7 369,645,714 41,144,017 26,337,553 14,806,464 354,839,251 8 354,839,251 42,789,778 25,171,634 17,618,144 337,221,107 9 337,221,107 44,501,369 23,792,620 20,708,748 316,512,358 10 316,512,358 46,281,423 22,179,506 24,101,918 292,410,440 11 292,410,440 48,132,680 20,309,505 27,823,175 264,587,265 12 264,587,265 50,057,988 18,157,916 31,900,072 232,687,193 13 232,687,193 52,060,307 15,697,965 36,362,342 196,324,851 14 196,324,851 54,142,719 12,900,647 41,242,073 155,082,778 15 155,082,778 53,184,480 9,839,768 43,344,712 111,738,066 16 111,738,066 45,742,006 6,839,603 38,902,403 72,835,663 17 72,835,663 41,826,674 3,184,540 38,642,135 (I) 18 19 20

Total $ 735,546,010 $ 357,244,538 $ 378,301,472

(I) Remaining principal is paid using accumulated amount from the additional $10 million contribution made on December 31, 2013.

Note: Results may be slightly off due to rounding

Note that annual payments include UAAL contributions from both the employer and the employees.

5340035vl/05012.105 SEGAL CONSULTING Attachment E

-After Additional $10M Contributions $50,000 -current Amortization Schedule

$40,000 0 e0 ~ $30,000 ------~------~------' E i;' a. ra $20,000 :I c: c: <( $10,000

$0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

($10,000) -'------____.

Year

5340035v1/05012.105 SEGAL CONSULTING ·.~

SCERA Actuarial Analysis of Financial Experience

5Year K$) 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Total Beginning of the Year .UAAL Liabllitv tsumlusl .35340~ . 24858€ •.... 402088 .301943 '177351

!Source of Acturial (Gain) Loss: Retirement Incidence 0 Post-Retirement Deaths 0 Compensation Increase -39901 -30251 1156 -22223 -1680 -92899 Disability Incidence 0 !Withdrawals 0 Investment Experience (Market Stabilization Reserve Amortization) 109347 125358 78077 87060 100867 500709 Other Experience 16275 -12366 -8611 -911 -827 -6440

~omposite (Gain) Loss for the Year 85721 .. ''·. 82741 •. .· 70622 .• 6392E 98360 401370

Other Items Impacting UAAL: UAAL for Cash Allowance Benefit 71099 71099 Elimination of Employer Paid Deferred Compensation as Compensation Earnable -11403 -11403 Assumption Change (Investment Earnings Assumption) 49692 54475 104167 lti.ssumption Change (Triennial Experience Study) 31455 19192 50647 Interest Accrual on UAAL Balance 27038 19370 23965 23707 13949 108029 Use of Undistributed Earnings (Excluded Reserves) to offset Investment Experience Loss -64132 -64132 Proceeds from Pension Obligation Bonds -289335 -28933!i Other -9053 2706 -13229 -6680 5316 -20940

Other Items lmoactina UAAL . ,. .8772~ ... .. : .. .2207E .• ,,;,:.224124 .. 36219 . 26232 -51868

End of the Year UAAL Liabilitv (Surolusl 52685~ . 353403 . 248586 .• 402088 301943

SONOMA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION 2 RESOLUTION# 112 DATE November 26. 2012

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SONOMA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AB 340 AND AB 197 (PENSION REFORM).

WHEREAS, the Board of Retirement of the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association ("SCERA") is responsible for administering the public retirement plan established by the County of Sonoma pursuant to the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 ("CBRL"), and

WHEREAS, the California Legislature has enacted AB 340 and AB 197 which, effective January l, 2013, will require modifications in the plan administered by SCERA and establish new requirements under the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of2013 ("PEPRA"), and

WHEREAS, at its public meeting on October 18, 2012, the Board considered a detailed presentation regarding AB 340 and AB 197 and directed the Retirement Administrator ("Administrator"), staff, and legal counsel to continue development of an implementation plan including identification of necessary policy determinations and directions to be addressed by the Board, and

WHEREAS, the Board members have received and reviewed a comprehensive report from the Administrator regarding implementation of AB 340 and AB 197 by SCERA, and

WHEREAS, based on its review of the facts and circumstances, the Board makes the following specific recitals and findings:

1. Following extensive review, including consultation with participating SCERA employers, the existing forms or items of employee compensation have been identified for the purpose of determining whether they should be included in compensation earnable and/or pensionable compensation (sometimes jointly referred to hereafter as "retirement compensation"). In particular, the impact of AB 340 and AB 197 on the previous retirement compensation determinations contained in Board of Retirement Resolution # 24 and the Court approved Settlement Agreement and Judgment entered June 3, 2003, were reviewed. The recommended determinations relating to the existing forms of employee compensation are set forth in Attachment "A" to this Resolution.

2. It is possible that new forms of employee compensation may be established in the future. In addition, it is possible that issues may arise regarding specific determinations made regarding existing forms of employee compensation. It is appropriate to empower the Administrator, in the first instance, to determine whether a form of employee compensation should be included in retirement compensation. The Board must retain ultimate authority on matters of administration and, accordingly, retirement compensation determinations made by the Administrator should be subject to Board review in a reasonable manner based on the circumstances.

1 3. Current SCERA members are entitled under the CERL to elect any one year period of compensation for purposes of calculating their retirement benefits (the "FAS period"). AB 197 will be effective January 1, 2013. For the time prior to that date, SCERA administered compensation earnable and benefit calculations in a manner it believed to be consistent with the provisions of the CERL then in effect, and in particular Government Code section 31461, as well as interpretive case law. In addition, SCERA and the County of Sonoma are subject to a Settlement Agreement and Judgment entered on June 30, 2003 in Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4049. That Judgment confirmed and required application of the compensation earnable determinations previously set forth in Board of Retirement Resolution #24. SCERA has to date collected appropriate employee and employer contributions based on its understanding of compensation earnable and the Judgment, and that understanding has been taken into account in setting assumptions for actuarial evaluations.

Under the circumstances, it is possible that a SCERA member retiring on or after January 1, 2013 may select a FAS period that includes compensation that was earned and paid on or before December 31, 2012. It is reasonable that SCERA consider such compensation in accordance with the CBRL provisions and the Judgment that were in effect at the time the services were rendered and the compensation was paid. AB 197 does not expressly address this issue, and there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the Legislature intended that any legislative changes in the compensation earnable provisions of the CERL must be applied to compensation paid prior to January 1, 2013.

4. AB 340 contains a provision addressing disability retirement benefits, Government Code section 7522.66. That provision is ambiguous regarding its application to public retirement systems created and operating under the CBRL. The provision specifies that it is intended to cover "[a] safety member ... who retires for industrial disability". (Emphasis supplied.) The Senate Committee Conference Report No. 1 (AB 340), dated 8/28/12, reflects that its purpose was to cover "safety members who qualify for Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR)." (Emphasis supplied.) CERL does provide for and SCERA has established a safety member classification. However, the CERL does not provide for an Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) benefit. Instead, the CERL authorizes a safety member to qualify to retire for service connected disability as defined by the governing statue, Government Code sections 31720(a) and 31727.4. Based on the statutory language and available information regarding legislative objectives, it is reasonable to conclude that this provision of AB 340 was not intended to apply to CERL systems.

5. To permit timely implementation, the Board is acting at this time regarding certain priority issues. For the benefit of SCERA members and other interested parties, it is appropriate to establish an initial written policy regarding the implementation of AB 340 and AB 197, compensation eamable, and pensionable compensation. That initial policy is set forth in Attachment "B" to this Resolution.

2 There are other issues, however, that ultimately must be addressed to achieve full implementation of AB 340 and AB 197. Therefore, it is important to continue to develop necessary policies and procedures to achieve that objective. The additional issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. SCERA is required to develop procedures to more closely monitor and review employer reporting of compensation for retirement benefit purposes. Other audits or reviews to determine correctness of retirement benefits, reportable compensation, and the proper enrollment of employees in SCERA may be appropriate.

B. The legislation requires changes in the sharing of the costs of providing benefits between employees and employers. The effects of those changes on SCERA's actuarial review and rate setting processes must be understood and administered. · ·

C. SCERA must be prepared to administer specific aspects of PEPRA such as identification of "new members" and application of pensionable compensation limits when the legislation comes into effect on January 1, 2013.

6. Although the Board of Retirement is responsible for determining what forms or types of employee compensation should be included in compensation earnable, those determinations must be consistent with the controlling statutory provisions of the retirement plan. As a result of its review and the recommendations of SCERA staff, the determinations made by the Board to date reflect its best understanding of the requirements of AB 340 and AB 197. Any such determinations must ultimately be subject to authoritative interpretation and/or clarification of the controlling law. Accordingly, in taking action to timely implement the new legislation the SCERA Board does not have authority to, and does not intend to create any entitlement to continued inclusion of any particular pay item in compensation earnable that is not otherwise permitted to be included pursuant to the statutory retirement plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SCERA Board of Retirement adopts and approves Attachment "A" to this Resolution as the determination of the Board regarding inclusion in or exclusion from compensation earnable or pensionable compensation, as appropriate, for the specified pay elements or categories. Any pay element or category in existence as of the date of this Resolution that is not shown in Attachment "A" shall be evaluated as a new pay element in accordance with the procedures established by the Board.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authority is delegated to the Retirement Administrator, in the first instance, to determine whether a pay element or category should be included in compensation earnable or pensionable compensation, as appropriate. The Administrator's determination is subject to review by the Board pursuant to reasonable procedures established by the Administrator.

3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in circumstances in which the FAS period selected by a retiring SCERA member includes time prior to January 1, 2013, the legal provisions and administrative policies regarding compensation earnable then in effect shall be applied to any compensation paid to the member on or before December 31, 2012 for purposes of detennining final compensation eamable and calculating retirement benefits.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board approves and adopts the implementation policy set forth as Attachment "B" to this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SCERA will not implement the provisions of AB 340 relating to disability retirement based on the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for those provisions to apply to CERL systems. In the event that it is becomes clear that the Legislature did intend for those provisions to apply, SCERA will take the steps necessary to implement those provisions as soon as practicable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Retirement Administrator and staff are directed to continue to develop the administrative policies and procedures required to achieve full compliance with AB 340 and AB 197. The Board delegates authority to the Administrator to implement such policies and procedures and such implementation shall be timely reported to the Board.

RETIREMENT BOARD TRUSTEES:

Alys Beels Edwards Ford Jahn

Pegg Rabbitt Sundstrom Williams Allen

Ayes Noes Abstain Absent

SO ORDERED

4 Ventura Settlement Agreement & ATTACHMENT A SCERA Board Resolutions 24 & 56 AB 197 Chan: Currently in. Eligible Ineligible Current Memb Income Description Calculation Earnin!!s Earnin!!s (effective 1/1/1

Reirular Earnings x

Sick Leave Taken x

Vacation Leave Taken x

Compensatory Time Taken x

Holiday as Pay Status x

Confidential Premium x If Converted · Auto Allowance x Not Included -- County Paid Deferred Compensation x Not Included

Resident Deputy Premium x

Detective Premium x

Youth Supervisor Case Worker Premium x

Supervisin!! Courtroom Clerk Premium x

Awards (performance related) x Presumotion Not Ini POST Premiums Premium pay given to law enforcement officers for additional hours of training. (POST- Police Officer Standards Training). x Shift Differentials Additional oay civen for working afternoon or evening shift. x Bilingual Pay Additional oav given for being able to soeak another language, usuallv Soanish. x Detention Facilities Assignment Premium Additional oav given for workers in jail and juvenile halls. x

RN License Premium x Stand-By Premium Premium pay for being on call. x Not Included Vacation Buy Back Per MOU - varies up to 80 hrs. per year - can sell back to the County and receive cash (in lieu of time Limited by Eamei off.) x Payable Test Administrative Leave Buy Back Limited by Eamei Elected officials - 56 hrs. x Payable Test Holiday Paid (excess of80 hour pay status) Holiday falls on regular day off (ie: work Weds - Sat., holiday on Monday - get paid 8 hrs. paid for holidav.) x Not Included Ventura Settlement Agreement & ATTACHMENT A SCERA Board Resolutions 24 and 56 AB 197 Chang Currently in Eligible Ineligible Current Membf Income Description Calculation Earnings Earnings (effective 1/1/J: Floating Holiday Limited by E:arnc1 Once u vcar (benefit in contract) everyone gets 8 hours of comp time. x Payable Test Limited by Eame< Three (3) Hour Holidav Comp Time Accrual x Payable Test Sick Leave Conversion Limited by Earnc\ UP to 24 hours u year. x Payable Test

Hazard Pav x

Animal Removal Assignment Premium x

Heavy Truck Operator Premium x

Fairground Special Equipment Premium x Charges Duties (Health Facilities) Premium pay for being in charge of particular area/staff (ex: charge nurse of PM shift) x Sexual Assault Premium (first $100) Premium pay for staff who do sexual assault exams. x

Psych. Nurse/FNP/PA Special Facilities x Detention Facility Premium - FTO Training new recruits for detention facility staff (correctional officers). x Cook and Chef at NCDF/MADF Premium l 0% premium pay for working around inmates (Potentially dam!erous). x Work Crew Premiums Supervising work crews - 5% or 7.5% increase for supervising inmates. x Maintenance Worker Water Agency Perm. Hours assisting mechanic - I 0% with minimum of 4 hours. x Rest Break Premium (Disposal Stations) $4.21 each day that break is not taken. x

Simulcast Attendant Premium "' x

Senior Legal Processor Premium x Uniforms and Allowances Given cash, no reimbursement - $70 to $120 per year. x

Cleanin!! Money (uniforms) x Bomb Disposal Hazard & special training nay for working on the bomb squad. x SWAT Hazard & special training pay for law enforcement officers working on the unit that handles extremely dangerous situations (ex: hostage negotiation). x SERT Premium for extracting inmates from cell in jail or detention facility (hazard pay/ possible violence). x I.A. Investigators Internal Affairs Investigators investigate Possible wrongdoing bv law enforcement/personnel. x Classification Officer Thev classifv where inmate will be placed (violent. suicidal. etc.) x Ventura Settlement Agreement & ATTACHMENT A SCERA Board Resolutions 24 & 56 AB 197 Chang Currently in Eligible Ineligible Current Memb< Income Description Calculation Earnings Earnings (effective 11111: Field Training Officer For law enfrocement patrol training recruits in the field. x Facilities Training Officer For correctional officers training recruits on the iob. x Dog Handler Supervisor Canine Unit - supervises officers that use doe:s. x Grievance/Discipline Officer Special training required to deal with inmate grievances/disciplinarv Problems - correctional officers. x Training Coordinator Person in charge of field and facilities training officers. x Helicopter Observer Officers who fly in the helicopter. x Alternate Helicopter Observer On-call to cover regular observer for vacation, sick leave, etc. x Not Included Inmate Program Services Officer 5% premium for planning inmate activities. x

Water A11:encv Plant Operator x

Housing Allowance x

Benefit Allowance All Units x Not Included

Tuition & Textbook Allowance x Not Included

Call Back x Not Included

Phone Work x Not Included

Milea11:e Reimbursement x Not Included

Overtime x Not Included

Half Time Pay x Not Included

Double Time x Not Included Vacation Payoff at Termination x Not Included

Sick Leave Payoff at Termination x Not Included

Comoensatorv Time Pav at Termination x Not Included

Safety Boot Vouchers x Not Included Add'! Pay Code Categories in Current ATTACHMENT A Review AB 197 Chang Eligible Current Membc Income Description Earnings (effective l/l/C Limited by Earncc Como Holiday Over Cao x Payable Test Limited by Earnec Como Holiday Cashout x Payable Test Other Categories of Leaves Taken Admin .. Catastrophic. Comoassionate. Court. Educ .. Jurv Dutv. Military, Supv .. 4850 x

Mandatorv Time Off Taken x

Voluntary Time Off Taken x

Union Release Time Taken x

Other Skill Based Premiums x

Other Shift Differentials x

Other Stand-By Premiums x Not lncluckd Other Allowances DSA Eauioment, Cell Phone x Flat Amount Board of Suoervisors serving on Commissions (ex. GG Bridge District. ABAG) x Cash Allowance County onlv ($3 .45/hour additional salary) x Dept. Head 5% Salary Increase for Advanced Notice of Retirement Resi!!11ation date set to allow succession planning, BOS Aoproval, 5% salary increase x Porac LTD Cash Paid to emplovee for LTD Premiums through PORAC x Not Included VOM - Holiday Pay Cash Paid for holidays whether scheduled or off duty, paid -biannuallv x VOM - Longevity Pay Percent salary increase for 5, I 0 and 15 years of consecutive service, paid bi-annually x VOM - Health Plan Allowance If Converted - Cash Paid for declining health care coverage x Not Included VOM - Paramedic Continuing Ed Cash Paid to defray cost of Paramedic Continuing Ed x Not Included

Facts and Circumstance Dependent:

Recruitment - Retention Incentive Incentive offered at time of hire oavable after one year Presumption Inclu . Flat Payment Ad Hoc Payment to all emoloyees in a bargaining unit Presumotion Not Inc Bonus Review Facts and Circumstances Presumption Not Inc ATTACHMENT B

SONOMA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

POLICY REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF AB340ANDAB197 COMPENSATION EARNABLE AND FINAL COMPENSATION

I. BACKGROUND

AB340 and AB 197 were passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor on September 12, 2012. The legislation is effective on January 1, 2013 and policies are necessary to support administrative implementation of the pension reform legislation for SCERA members. A foundational legal analysis was the first step to determine the impact of the new legislative provisions on SCERA member benefits. SCERA legal counsel provided the legal policy review at the October 18, 2012 Retirement Board meeting. Subsequently, pay code categories were reviewed with employers, to assist in developing staff and counsel proposed changes to compensation earnable for current members and proposed pensionable compensation for new members resulting from the pension reform legislation.

AB340 established a standard of pensionable compensation for new members hired on or after January 1, 2013 and AB197 clarified the standard for compensation earnable for current members. Pensionable compensation (AB340) and compensation earnable (AB197) will be referred to as compensation eamable for ease of reference in this policy.

The resulting proposed compensation eamable policy by pay code category and Resolution #112 were reviewed (and approved) by the Retirement Board on November 26, 2012. Resolution #112 sets the policy structure for compensation eamable treatment of pay code categories in support of the initial implementation of AB340 and AB 197 on January 1, 2013.

In addition, a final compensation eamable policy review was necessary for current members given the effective date of the legislation and its impact on compensation eamable after January 1, 2013 along with the compensation eamable history for SCERA members in light of the Sonoma County Court approved settlement agreement and judgment to the Ventura Supreme Court Decision. The final compensation eamable policy following implementation of AB 197 for current members was also reviewed (and approved) by the Retirement Board.

This policy outlines the requirements for ongoing staff administrative policy responsibilities regarding initial implementation of compensation eamable and final compensation provisions of AB340 and AB 197. ATTACHMENT B

11. POLICY

SCERA staff will implement final compensation earnable consistent with AB340 and AB 197 and the policy approved by the Retirement Board in Resolution #112. Any limitations or exclusions of compensation eamable items after the effective date of the legislation (January 1, 2013) are applied prospectively. The retirement compensation history for the period prior to January 1, 2013 was reviewed and established as consistent with the legal provisions in effect and appropriate contributions have been collected from employees and employers.

The Retirement Administrator, with assistance of legal counsel, is responsible for ongoing policy decisions related to compensation eamable following Board approval of Resolution #112. The Retirement Administrator will keep the Retirement Board informed regarding significant ongoing compensation eamable policy matters, as appropriate.

Employers are responsible for coding of pay code categories consistent with SCERA policy determinations and subject to SCERA staff review. A short list of pay code categories are noted as "presumption included" or "presumption not included" and should be coded by employers consistent with the presumption in the pay code category review. Employers are responsible to notify SCERA staff regarding the facts and circumstances of any pay items they consider may be an exception to the presumption for review by SCERA Retirement Administrator. In addition, SCERA staff will code SCERA systems in a way that flags presumption pay codes for ongoing policy review with each payroll transmittal from employers.

Employers are responsible for notifying SCERA staff of new pay codes for compensation eamable review by SCERA staff at the time of implementation of the codes. SCERA staff will review employer pay code listings on a quarterly basis for compliance with established policy as part of staff administrative procedures.

SCERA staff will continue the longstanding current practice which includes a detailed pay item review of final compensation earnable prior to establishing retirement benefits for retiring SCERA members. Consistent with current practice, matters requiring policy review will be flagged by staff for Retirement Administrator review and detennination regarding compensation eamable for the calculation of benefits. SCERA members or employers may appeal a policy decision by the Retirement Administrator to the Retirement Board. In most circumstances, this review will occur as an agenda item at the next available Retirement Board meeting.

When reviewing items of compensation, SCERA staff will audit pay items to identify those that may have a primary purpose to enhance retirement benefits (e.g. conversion of pay items from in-kind to cash payment in the FAS period), involve the manipulation of compensation by SCERA members or employers to enhance benefits, receipt of ad hoc payments or any other compensation considered to be inconsistent with the pension reform legislation provisions. ATTACHMENTB

III. HISTORY

Approved by the Board of Retirement on ______Fiscal Policy Manual POLICY DE-1: Policy for Debt Management APPROVED: Board of Supervisors AUTHORITY: Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector ISSUE/REVISED DATE: May 15, 2012

I. Introduction I Purpose

The purpose of the County of Sonoma (the "County") Debt Management Policy (the "Policy") is to ensure sound and uniform practices for issuing and managing debt. The County recognizes that it may need to enter into debt obligations to finance projects and to meet fiscal responsibilities. Accordingly, this Debt Management Policy confirms the commitment of the Board of Supervisors (the "Board"), staff, advisors and other decision makers to adhere to sound financial management practices.

The County's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report lists a number of legally separate organizations ("component units") for which the Board is financially accountable. This Policy informs the actions of these component units to ensure a uniform approach to the issuance of debt.

II. Policy Objectives

The Policy objectives are as follows:

• Establish a systematic and prudent approach to debt issuance and debt management. • Ensure access to debt capital markets and direct purchase investors (private placement providers) through prudent and flexible policies. • Define specific limits or acceptable ranges for general fund supported debt and pension obligation debt.

Ill. Scope

This Policy governs the issuance and management of all debt and lease financing activity by County entities and component units. The debt policies and practices of the County are subject to and limited by applicable provisions of state and federal law and to prudent debt management principles.

The County uses financing techniques prescribed under existing law for projects that require financing beyond the current fiscal year. These techniques can include, but are not limited to, certificates of participation, lease-back arrangements, and revenue and assessment bonds.

IV. Debt Advisory Committee

The Debt Advisory Committee ("DAC") was formed by and is advisory to the County Administrator's Office ("CAO"). The Debt Advisory Committee ("DAC") is responsible for reviewing all proposed financing and providing the County Administrator's Office ("CAO") with a recommended course of action. The DAC may utilize the services of an independent Financial Advisor when analyzing proposed financing. The DAC consists of seven members: (1) Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector (Chair), (2) County Administrator (Vice-Chair}, (3) County Counsel, (4) Director of General Services, (5) Chief Engineer of the County Water Agency, (6) Executive Director of the Community Development Commission and (7) Assistant Treasurer. Members may specify an alternate to act in their place. Additional operating policies for the DAC are found under Section 1-3 of the Administrative Policy Manual - Policy for Debt Advisory Committee (Appendix A).

V. Delegation of Authority

Government Code § 53635. 7 requires that all borrowing be placed on the Board Agenda as a separate item of business. This Policy requires that the Board specifically authorize each financing proposal based on the recommendation of the CAO. Policy implementation and the day-to-day responsibility for and authority over the County's debt program will lie with the Auditor Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector (the "ACTTC") and that office's Revenue and Debt Division Manager (the "Debt Manager") with participation by County Counsel and other departments as necessary. The ACTTC and Debt Manager will be supported on an as-needed basis by other members of the financing team and a Financial Advisor. The services of other outside consultants may be retained if necessary.

This Policy will be reviewed annually and updated as necessary. Any changes to the Policy are subject to approval by the DAC and the Board. The revised Policy will be provided to all County entities and component units. While adherence to this Policy is required, the County recognizes that changes in capital markets, County programs, and other unforeseen circumstances may produce situations that are not covered by this Policy. This may require modification or exceptions to achieve Policy objectives. In these cases, flexibility is appropriate, provided specific authorization from the Board or the component unit's Board of Directors is obtained.

VI. Standards for Debt Financing

The County will minimize the level of Direct Debt by incurring debt only in those cases where public policy, public interest and/or economic efficiency favor debt over cash financing or grant funding. In addition, the County shall use self-supporting (debt-service neutral or better) debt when possible.

The County in most cases will issue debt to finance capital projects. Other possible reasons to issue debt include (but are not limited to) refinancing unfunded pension liabilities, allowing the County to cover periods of temporary cash shortfalls, refinancing bonds, and paying obligations imposed by law. Except to alleviate cash-flow timing issues within a fiscal year, the County will avoid using debt to finance reoccurring operating expenses. All debt issuance will fall within the limits permitted by the California Constitution and state law.

a. Credit Ratings

Without compromising the County's objectives, the County will work to ensure that all debt issuances receive the highest credit ratings possible. In addition, the County will attempt to maintain or improve the credit ratings of outstanding bonds.

b. Debt Issuance Requirements

All debt is required to undergo a DAC review before receiving the recommendation of the CAO and the approval of the Board.

All debt will be limited by the constraints described in Section IX, "Debt Level I Affordability Targets." c. Method of Sale

The County's goal is to protect the public's interest by obtaining the lowest possible interest cost. To obtain this goal, the County may use a competitive, negotiated, limited-competitive (hybrid) or private placement method of sale. The appropriate method should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Before selecting a method of sale for public offerings, the financing team shall take into consideration the current market, the issuer's characteristics, and the proposed bond structure. Market considerations will focus on the supply and demand of competing issuances. Issuer characteristic considerations will include market familiarity, credit strength, and policy goals. Bond structure considerations will include the type of debt instrument, issue size, structure, and timing.

The County prefers the use of a competitive sale for public offerings. However, if the Financial Advisor believes that pre-sale marketing will enhance the County's ability to sell the bonds to the public, the financing team should evaluate the benefits and legality of a limited-competitive or negotiated sale.

Due to the limited liquidity of private placements, public offerings will typically offer a lower cost of funds. Private placements are typically utilized for smaller issuances, more complex bond structures, or financings with short lead time. d. Derivatives

A derivative product is a financial instrument which derives its own value from the value of another instrument, usually an underlying asset such as a stock, bond, or an underlying reference such as an interest rate. Derivatives are commonly used as hedging devices in managing interest rate risk and thereby reducing borrowing costs. However, these products bear certain risks not associated with standard debt instruments. Accordingly, derivative products should only be employed after careful evaluation of potential benefits and risks with prior DAC and Board approval. e. Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor Requirements

Where appropriate, Bond and/or Disclosure Counsel and a Financial Advisor will be engaged. f. Economies of Scale

The County will bundle projects into fewer transactions to achieve economies of scale associated with costs of issuance when feasible. In addition, the County will seek to optimize the use of assets used as underlying collateral when considering any new debt issuance. g. Arbitrage Regulations

Generally, tax-exempt bond issues are subject to IRS arbitrage rebate requirements. These requirements specify that any profit or arbitrage be rebated to the Federal Government. Rebate computations are typically required every five (5) years and upon final redemption or maturity of the bonds. Any excess earnings are required to be rebated to the Federal Government. h. Arm's Length Transactions

The County will endeavor to have "Arm's Length Transactions," in which the buyers (underwriters) of the debt have no relationship with the County. For Arm's Length Transactions, the County and the buyer are both acting in their own self interest and are not subject to any pressure or duress from the other party. i. Purpose of Debt

There are two basic types of debt: new money financings and refunding financings.

i. New Money Financings

The County may issue long-term debt in order to generate funding for capital projects. Short-term debt may be issued to generate funding for cash flow needs.

ii. Refunding Financings

Refunding bonds are issued to retire all or a portion of an outstanding bond issue or other debt. Such bonds can be used to achieve present value savings on debt service, to modify interest rate risk, or to restructure the payment schedule, type of debt instrument used, or covenants of existing debt. The County must analyze each refunding bond on a present value basis to evaluate the economic effects. Policies on the administration of refunding bonds are detailed in Section Vl.k. "Refunding Bonds". j. Types of Debt I Terms of Debt - New Money

There are a variety of debt structures that the County will consider to meet its funding needs.

Short term debt includes tax and revenue anticipation notes (TRANs), commercial paper, grant anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes and lines of credit. Long term debt structures include, but are not limited to, general obligation (GO) bonds, special assessment district bonds, lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation, enterprise revenue bonds, sales tax revenue bonds, asset securitizations and pension obligation bonds (POBs).

The County may also participate in conduit financing, in which the Board may approve the issuance of bonds for the purposes of commercial, industrial, or residential property development. This type of financing does not create a liability for the County.

i. Debt Terms- New Money

Term and Structure: Long-term debt financing of capital projects will be for a period not to exceed 120% of the expected average useful life of the assets being financed, and in no event should exceed thirty (30) years. Debt Service will be structured to be level over the length of the bonds except in those instances where it is economically advantageous to the County or meets other County objectives to structure debt service differently. Short term debt and structure will be determined on a case-by-case basis and will be consistent with appropriate legal and tax requirements.

Coupon Premiums and Discounts: Coupon Premiums and Discounts shall be determined on a case-by-case basis as recommended by the Financial Advisor.

Call Provisions: Debt will be structured with the shortest possible Optional Call consistent with optimal pricing and County objectives. Debt Service Reserve Fund: For long term debt and where appropriate for short-term debt, a Debt Service Reserve Fund will be utilized to achieve optimal pricing. Alternately, a Surety Bond may be evaluated and used if found to be economically advantageous.

Capitalized Interest: All interest due from the date of debt issuance may be rolled into principal until substantial completion of the project being funded unless another asset pledge or other sources of funds are available.

Variable Rate Debt: To maintain a predictable debt service burden, the County will give preference to debt that carries a fixed interest rate. An alternative to the use of fixed rate debt is floating or variable rate debt. It may be appropriate to issue short-term or long-term variable rate debt to diversify the County's debt portfolio, reduce interest costs, provide interim funding for capital projects or improve the match of assets to liabilities.

Budgetary safeguards should be in place before incurring variable rate debt, and such debt should never amount to more than 20% of all outstanding debt. Before incurring variable rate debt, careful consideration should be given to current market conditions and trends, including the costs and availability of Liquidity Facilities. The County's cost for administering variable rate debt should be considered when comparing fixed and variable rate debt.

Credit Enhancement: The County will consider the use of credit enhancements on a case-by-case basis, evaluating the economic benefit versus the cost for each case. Bond insurance, stand-by letters of credit and other credit enhancements should be used only when they clearly demonstrate a net present value savings to the County.

Senior/Subordinate: Senior and Subordinate debt will be utilized in a manner that will minimize the costs of financing or maximize debt capacity. k. Refunding Bonds (Debt Refinancing)

The County is responsible for acting upon refunding opportunities that offer significant savings over the maintenance of existing debt.

Periodically, the County will analyze and evaluate debt repayment opportunities based on current market conditions. Additionally, the County may request or receive analysis of an opportunity to refund existing debt from a Financial Advisor or other municipal financial market participant. The County will consider such opportunities and evaluate the economic benefit they may present.

i. Debt Service Savings

The County has established a minimum present value cash flow savings threshold goal of three (3) percent of the refunded bond principal amount. A refinance may also be considered if other compelling reasons exist.

The present value savings will be net of all costs of the refinancing, will consider the difference in interest earnings of the debt service reserve funds of the refunded and refunding bonds, and may include any cash associated with the refunded bonds held by the Trustee. The decision to take the savings on an upfront or deferred basis must be approved by the Board after recommendation by the DAC and the CAO. ii. Guiding Principles

In evaluating refunding opportunities and applying the above referenced guidelines, the DAC and staff shall also consider the following:

Adjustments to the savings threshold for Advance Refundings, may be justified based on the length of time before the call of the bonds to be refunded. The longer the escrow, the higher the savings threshold should be. Conversely, shorter escrows may justify a lower savings threshold.

The County should consider a forward refunding to preserve the ability to advance refund the bonds at a future date for Advance Refundings with very short escrows.

Adjustments to savings thresholds for both Advance Refundings and Current Refundings, may be justified based on:

the length of time from the call to maturity. The longer the time to maturity, the higher should be the savings threshold. Conversely, a shorter time to maturity may justify a lower savings threshold.

interest rates at the time of the refunding relative to historical markets. In low interest rate markets a lower threshold may be justified while a higher threshold would be justified in high interest rate markets.

The coupon structure and/or callability of the refunding bonds may also justify adjustments to the savings threshold. Non-callable refunding bonds, for example, might justify a higher threshold. iii. Restructuring

The County will refund debt when it is in its best interest to do so. Refundings will include restructuring to meet unanticipated revenue expectations, terminate Swaps, achieve cost savings, mitigate irregular debt service payments, release reserve funds or remove unduly restrictive bond covenants. iv. Term of Refunding Issues

The County will refund bonds within the term of the originally issued debt. However, the County may consider maturity extension to achieve a desired outcome, provided that such extension is legally permissible. The County may also consider shortening the term of the originally issued debt to realize greater interest savings.

v. Escrow Structuring

The County shall utilize the least costly securities available in structuring refunding escrows. The County will examine the viability of an economic versus legal Defeasance on a net present value basis. A certificate from a third party agent, who is not a broker dealer, is required. Said certificate must state that the securities were procured through an arm's length, competitive bid process (in the case of open market securities); that such securities were more cost effective than State and Local Government Obligations; and that the price paid for the securities was reasonable within Federal guidelines. Under no circumstances shall an Underwriter, Agent or Financial Advisor sell escrow securities to the County from its own account. vi. Arbitrage

The County shall take all necessary steps to optimize escrows and to avoid negative arbitrage in its refundings. Any resulting positive arbitrage will be rebated according to Federal guidelines. VII. Debt Structuring Practices

The following standard terms shall be applied to all County debt transactions as appropriate. Based on the market condition at the time of the transaction, individual terms may need to be altered.

Characteristic General Obligation Lease Revenue Certificates of Bonds Bonds Participation Term 20 Years per Up to 20 years 20 years standard but issuance/series depending on the not to exceed the cash flow remaining useful life of assumptions, the asset being construction timeline financed and remaining useful life of the asset being financed Maximum Yield Between 6 - 8% Between 6 - 8% Between 6 - 8% Maximum Premium Case by case as Case by case as Case by case as recommended by FA recommended by FA recommended by FA Maximum Discount None None None Payment Dates Fixed - Bi-Annual Fixed - Bi-Annual Fixed - Bi-Annual Coupons Fixed Rate Fixed Rate Fixed Rate Call Provisions Shortest possible Shortest possible Shortest possible option call consistent option call consistent option call consistent with optimal pricing with optimal pricing with optimal pricing Structure of Debt Level debt service Level debt service - Level debt service - unless otherwise unless otherwise dictated by underlying dictated by underlying remaining useful lives remaining useful lives

Debt Service Reserve None Maximum annual Maximum annual principal and interest principal and interest payment amount payment amount Capitalized Interest None Reimbursement Adopted by the Board Adopted by the Board Adopted by the Board Resolution of Supervisors of Supervisors of Supervisors Good Faith Deposit Lesser of 125% of cost Lesser of 125% of Lesser of 125% of cost of issuance or 1 % of cost of issuance or of issuance or 1 % of par amount 1% of par amount par amount Budgeting Debt Debt service shall be Budget shall be for Budget shall be for Service included in the tax levy gross debt service gross debt service and and the responsibility the responsibility of the of the sponsoring sponsoring department department VIII. Debt Level I Affordability Targets

The County shall establish an affordable level of debt in order to preserve credit quality and ensure financial stability. As such, aggregate General Fund lease debt service should fall within a 1 range of four to six percent (4%-6%) of General Fund Expenditures • The County shall maintain a debt affordability model with ratios recalculated at the time of a new debt issue. The DAC and the Board will be notified if any new issuance would cause the ratio to exceed the threshold. Both DAC and Board approval would be required before the County is allowed to exceed the ratio threshold.

A component unit may be allowed to exceed the above target ratio if the unit generates user fees through a business-type activity. The component unit must, however, repay the debt with money generated by user fees or other dedicated revenue sources.

The above target ratio does not include POB debt service or the County's pension and retiree health care unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), which itself is a form of "debt" owed to retirement plan members. POB's are used to refund the county's UAAL at a lower cost to achieve cost savings and shall be issued only after careful consideration by the DAC and Board of potential benefits and risks. Considerations shall include: (i) the spread between the expected borrowing rate and the assumed rate of return on retirement plan assets; (ii) investment risk associated with the investment of POB proceeds; (iii) issuing a sufficient amount of POBs to generate market interest; and (iv) the County's overall pension burden, including both POB debt and UAAL. The County has established that the debt service for POBs should not exceed 5%- 7% of total County expenditures, without consideration of UAAL. To the extent that rating agency or other metrics are available, the County's pension burden shall be compared to that of other comparable agencies.

IX. Financial Assistance

The County may be approached by organizations seeking financing for projects or to satisfy temporary cash flow shortfalls that exist between periods of expenditure and revenue generation. The County has established a set of guidelines (see Appendix B, "County of Sonoma Financial Assistance Guidelines") to govern such requests.

X. Discount Rate Reduction

The discount rate for employee pension obligations will be evaluated periodically by the County. The impact of modifying the discount rate will be compared with the costs and benefits of allowing the rate to remain static. During stock market boom cycles, increased returns are often utilized to ensure the retirement systems funding status, reduce outstanding debt where allowable, and bolster the trust fund against uncertainty.

XI. Annual Reporting I Continuing Disclosure

The County will prepare an annual debt obligation report (the "Report") for distribution to the DAC, CAO, Board, and general public. The Report will include:

• the total County debt as of June 30 of that year. • each debt obligation's interest rate, term, and annual payment. • any refinancing that occurred that year.

1 In calculating this ratio, General Fund Expenditures shall include any Net Transfers Out (Transfers In minus Transfers Out) of the General Fund. In addition, when calculating this ratio self supporting debt, such as GO bonds, tax allocation bonds and enterprise revenue bonds, as well as short-term debt including TRANs and other notes, should not be included. All existing County debt should be compliant with Continuing Disclosure Certificate requirements. All future debt issues should also be compliant.

Each responsible County department, agency, district or authority issuing or managing debt will:

• observe all applicable state and federal regulations and laws regarding disclosure. • file all annual reports and material event notices with the appropriate agencies in a timely manner. • file a Material Event notice pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The County will conduct "due diligence" meetings with all relevant County staff prior to the issuance of new bonds and notes. A Preliminary Official Statement will be released to the market only after the completion of the "due diligence" meetings.

XII. New Financing Methods and Techniques

Changing federal regulations and the shifting concerns of rating agencies mean that Counties operate in a dynamic financial environment. This Policy is not intended to hinder the County's use of any new financing techniques that may arise.

Proposals for financing methods not included in this Policy should be addressed to the DAC. If the DAC approves of such financing methods, the DAC should recommend their use to the CAO. This Policy should then be amended to reflect any new financing techniques recommended by the DAC and approved by the Board.

XIII. Conclusion

This Policy is intended to guide and regulate the County's issuance of debt. The County is aware, however, that the financial environment may change and that this Policy may therefore require a review or update. Should circumstances dictate, this Policy should be modified to remain relevant in the current financial environment. Appendix A

[Under: 1-0 General Administration & Organization or 3-0 Budget and Fiscal]

1-3 Policy for Debt Advisory Committee Approved: Authority: Revised Date:

I. Purpose The Debt Advisory Committee was formed by and is advisory to the County Administrator's Office. The Debt Advisory Committee (the "Committee") is charged with protecting the County's financial well-being and strong credit rating by assisting County departments or other government entities under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors ("component units") in placing debt.

II. Policy A. General Provisions 1. Function The Committee's primary function shall be to review any proposed financing of $500,000 or more initiated by a County department or a component unit and make a recommendation as set forth in this document.

"Financings" shall mean any bonds, certificates of participation, lease-purchase agreements, notes, interest rate swaps, letters of credit or other financing arrangements in an amount of $500,000 or more that will create a long-term liability for the County or a component unit.

2. Scope At the County Administrator's request, the Committee will also review and make recommendations on other financing issues. Issues and questions which the Committee will research and review include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. The total level of debt obligations within the County. For purposes of this policy, debt is defined to include financing techniques legally available to the County for projects that require resources beyond the current fiscal year. The Committee should consider any resulting burden on County taxpayers and the maintenance of the County's financial strength and credit ratings.

b. The level of debt of overlapping jurisdictions.

c. The appropriateness of a given type of debt instrument for a financed project.

d. The structure of a given financing, including maturity, amortization, security, interest rates, rating, risk, and any other parameters the Committee deems appropriate. e. The debt levels of County departments and agencies.

f. The status of existing debt issues, including such matters as refunding possibilities, administration costs, and adherence to covenants.

B. COMMITTEE 1. Committee Members

The Committee shall consist of the following individuals or their alternates:

a. County Administrator

b. County Counsel

c. Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector

d. Director of General Services

e. Chief Engineer of the County Water Agency

f. Executive Director of the Community Development Commission

g. Assistant Treasurer (Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office)

2. Alternates Any officer named in B. l ., above may designate an alternate to act as a member of the Committee in his or her stead. For all interests and purposes, it will be as though the officer were personally present. The alternate will possess the rights to participate in the proceedings of the Committee and to vote upon any and all matters.

3. Chair and Vice-Chair The County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector or his or her alternate will chair the Committee. The County Administrator or his or her alternate will act as the Vice Chair. The Chair shall be responsible for providing the functions of a recording secretary if the Committee deems such services to be necessary. C. COMMITTEE MEETINGS Any member will have the right to propose a meeting of the Committee. After a member proposes a meeting, the Chair shall call a meeting, prepare an agenda and notify all members of the Committee as soon as is practical.

The Committee may also conduct business using a digital voting process if a live meeting is not practical.

D. COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1. Committee Review

The Committee will determine the feasibility of project financing, the financing program, and the program's compliance with County policy following consideration of all material submitted, both written and oral. The Committee reserves the right to require subsequent reviews of each financing project prior to the sale of bonds to ensure that all provisions of the policy are being met.

2. Recommendations

The Committee will record its recommendations after taking action pursuant to Section 1 of this chapter. County departments and component units will include the Committee's recommendations to the CAO in their report to the Board of Supervisors.

3. Waivers and Modifications

The Committee, with concurrence of the County Administrator, has the right to waive or modify any of the policies included herein, if, in its judgment, the County and its residents would benefit from such waiver or modification.

E. ITEMS SUBMITTED TO COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW The County department or component unit requesting the Committee's review shall submit the following information to the Committee Chair:

1. A description of the project or facilities to be financed.

2. A description of the source of revenue for debt retirement, including a statement regarding the liability of the County and the Board in the event of a default.

3. A summary of the public review process, if any, and the actions the Board will be required to take.

4. A schedule of financing activities. 5. Identification of administrative tasks and responsibilities necessary for debt service administration and covenant compliance.

All information must be received at least one week prior to the review. AppendixB

County of Sonoma Financial Assistance Guidelines

Periodically, a County Supervisor, the County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector (the "County Treasurer"), or the County Administrator is approached by organizations seeking financing for various projects and programs. Predominantly, requests are made for short term, temporary funding, to fill the gap of time between current expenditure needs, and an unrealized future source of funding.

The following guidelines will help the reader better understand what legally acceptable avenues of financial assistance/support exist for these requests. If you have any questions regarding how to interpret these guidelines, please call the Revenue & Debt Division Manager, Jonathan Kadlec, at 565-6124.

The County Treasury

l. Temporary Transfers (California Constitution, Article XVI, § 6)

The California Constitution allows the County Treasurer to make temporary transfers to any city, district, or political subdivision whose funds are in the custody of the County Treasury. Transfers can only be made from July 1 through the last Monday in April of the current fiscal year, and must be repaid from revenues prior to any other obligation of the borrower. On July 1, the amount of the advance may be up to 85% of anticipated revenues accruing within the current fiscal year. All transfers must have the prior approval of the local governing board of the borrowing entity. In addition to the repayment of principal, the borrowing entity must also pay the Treasury pooled rate of interest on the principal amount of outstanding indebtedness, up until the repayment date.

On February 20, 1991, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved resolution #90- 0271 delegating authority to the County Treasurer to approve temporary transfers, secured wholly by funds collected through the property tax system. Any other outside source of revenues used to secure a transfer must receive both approval of the borrowing entity's local board, and the County Board of Supervisors.

2. County Treasury Investments- Local Agency Debt (Government Code§ 53601(a) and (d))

From time to time local government agencies may issue bonds, notes, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness that the County Treasurer may invest in, provided that the County Treasurer deems the investment to be secure, and provided the investments meet all other investment criteria as outlined in the County Treasurer's Investment Policy, as approved by the Board of Supervisors. The following are the basic criteria for this type of investment:

A. The local agency must have the legal authority to issue the indebtedness. For example, pursuant to GC § 53850 et seq., local government agencies are authorized to issue tax revenue anticipation notes (TRAN). The Treasury requires the issuing agency's counsel to write a letter verifying that the agency has the authority to issue the note, and specifying the statutory authority that applies. Pursuant to GC 53635.7, the County Treasurer will also require the local governing board to have discussed and deliberated each borrowing decision of $100,000 or more, prior to issuance of the proposed indebtedness.

B. There must be a secure source of repayment for the protection of the Treasury Pool participants. Valid sources might include a final grant award, revenue streams such as sales tax money, fees or charges that meet or exceed the repayment period, an agency general fund, or other secure sources subject to review and approval by the County Treasurer.

C. In no event is the County Treasurer permitted to purchase investments with a remaining term to maturity of five years or more, unless the County Board of Supervisors has granted the express authority to make that specific investment, or as part of an investment program approved by the Board at least 3 months prior to the investment.

The County

After considering other first line financing options such as CSAC's California Communities Joint Powers Authority, commercial banks or other funding sources, the County may use debt as an alternate means of financial assistance in two ways, either as an issuer of debt or a purchaser of debt. In general, debt is divided into two categories, short term and long term. By definition, short term typically means 13 months or the end of the current fiscal year, and long term debt is greater than 13 months or beyond the end of the current fiscal year.

A. Short Term Debt Issuance

Pursuant to GC § 53820, 53840 & 53850 et seq., short term debt instruments such as a TRAN (Tax Revenue Anticipation Note), GAN (Grant Anticipation Note), or BAN (Bond Anticipation Note) may be issued by approval of the Board of Supervisors. Notes are typically issued to bridge a cash flow shortage for a specific project or need.

B. Long Term Debt Issuance

The County may not issue long-term debt, meaning any type of debt instrument with maturity of 13 months, or greater than the end of the current fiscal year, without a two-thirds majority vote of the citizens of Sonoma County. Examples of debt subject to this limitation include GO bonds or Revenue bonds. There are exceptions for lease instruments (certificates of paiticipation, or "COP' s", and master lease-purchases), where the county is annually paying for value it receives, and the debt cannot be accelerated. These instruments are quite complex and bond counsel is normally retained to draft the documents. A lease-purchase borrowing of $500,000 or more is only used when financially prudent, and at the recommendation of the CAO and the Debt Advisory Committee, and with Board approval, in order to finance significant capital improvement projects such as buildings, building improvements or major systems acquisitions. Lease-purchases under $500,000 are subject to normal County Purchasing guidelines and approvals.

C. Debt Purchase

Pursuant to GC § 53601, the County may also purchase or invest in debt instruments of local agencies or districts. The types of investments are also defined by GC § 53601. Consideration of this option means that the County Treasurer within his fiduciary responsibility cannot purchase the contemplated debt as an investment under the Treasury investment policy guidelines. Inherently, the debt is less secure than Treasury investments and thus shall be subject to underwriting guidelines in order to be considered for purchase (See Appendix C). Use of this option should be for the purposes of accomplishing an overriding public policy goal. The issuing agency must also demonstrate that they have the legal debt capacity to issue the debt being considered. For the protection of the County, any type of debt purchased must have a clearly defined, legal source ofrepayment and collateral. Use of this option as a means of financial assistance is dependent upon the General Fund having sufficient cash flow available after all reserve and operational cash flow obligations are met. Because of the potential risk to the General Fund, the County Treasurer and County Administrator shall be consulted in conjunction with this option, and a recommendation presented to the Board of Supervisors.

Other

Notwithstanding the previous guidelines, pursuant to GC § 26227, the Board of Supervisors may appropriate and expend money from the general fund of the County, or any other fund under their authority, to establish or fund programs deemed necessary to meet the social needs of the population of the County. Purposes allowed under this code section are broad and sweeping in nature. If consideration for financial assistance for a specific need outside of the funding of normal County operations is being contemplated, then a policy determination will have to be made to approve the proposed financing program. Assistance of this type must be processed in the normal budgetary process using ordinary budget controls.

Summary

In particular, any type of financial assistance provided through a method that poses a potential liability to either the General Fund or the Treasury Pool should at a minimum follow the aforementioned guidelines. In addition, these requests should generally be considered only when the following criteria can be met:

l) Safety of Funds - Protection of principal 2) Liquidity of Funds 3) Yield or Fair Return on Investment 4) Public Benefit An evaluation of each request should be made on a case by case basis, with the goal of meeting these criteria. Please refer to Appendix C for underwriting guidelines to be used as a starting point. In general, the highest priority will be given to the safety and protection of principal, and each request will be evaluated using items #1-3 of the underwriting guidelines. If a request cannot meet the safety of principal test then no further evaluation is needed as the request will be denied. If the request meets the safety of principal test, then a further analysis of liquidity and yield will be performed using items #4-6 of the underwriting guidelines. Finally, a discussion of public benefit will be balanced against the other factors in arriving at a final decision. In all cases the County will require that proper documentation is provided and under no circumstances will subordination be allowed (#7 and #8 underwriting guidelines). Appendix C

Underwriting Guidelines

The following criteria are factors that will be considered in order to qualify any County purchase of debt issued by an outside agency. This is not necessarily a comprehensive set of guidelines and there may be additional factors that are unique to the nature of a debt issue that need to be considered on a case specific basis.

1. Acceptable Collateral - Primary

A. Tax Revenue (Parcel Tax, Sales Tax or Property Tax) B. Grants or Subsidies in favor of the County

2. Secondary Collateral

A. Real Property B. Bank Secured Letter of Credit C. Acceptable Securities D. Cash Reserve or equivalent

3. Debt Service Coverage Ratio

The Debt Service Coverage Ratio which is, defined as the ratio of Net Annual Operating Revenues to Annual Debt Service, should be 1.25 times or greater.

4. Term

The term of any debt purchase by the County must be five years or less unless the Board of Supervisors approves a term of greater than five years.

5. Rate

The rate on any debt purchased shall not be less than the current County Treasury Pool rate plus administrative costs to manage the debt purchase.

6. Size

The size of a debt purchase is dependent upon the General Fund having sufficient cash flow available after all reserve and operational cash flow obligations are met.

7. Documentation

At a minimum, any purchase of debt requires an opinion letter from Bond Counsel that the debt is issued in accordance with relevant State law, a Purchase Agreement, a Promissory Note and any other documents deemed necessary to the transaction. All documentation will be subject to review by County Counsel. 8. Subordination

The County will not subordinate its repayment priority to any other debt issued subsequent to that debt being purchased by the County. Appendix D - Glossary

Advance/Current Refunding. A financing technique that typically allows an issuer to obtain the benefit of lower interest rates or an alternate bond structure when the outstanding bonds are (1) not currently callable (advance refunding) or (2) are currently callable (current refunding). For an advance refunding, the proceeds from the sale of the refunding bonds are used to purchase taxable government securities, which are deposited in an escrow account. The escrow account is structured so that the principal and interest earned on the securities are sufficient to pay all principal, interest, and call premium, if any, on the outstanding bonds, up to and including the call date. For a current refunding bond, proceeds are immediately used to pay principal, interest and call premium, if any, on the outstanding bonds. The refunding bonds are secured by the same sources of taxes or revenue previously pledged to the payment of the outstanding bonds.

Arbitrage. The difference between interest cost and interest earnings.

Business-type activities. Functions of the County that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges. Examples of business-type activities of the County include Refuse, the Sonoma County Water Agency and Airport.

Capitalized Interest. A portion of the bond proceeds set aside to pay interest on the bonds for a specific period of time. During the construction phase of a project interest is commonly capitalized so that debt service does not begin until project completion.

Certificates of Participation. A method of structuring and distributing tax-exempt leases to investors by dividing the rental payments and lease into fractionalized interests or shares for individual sale to investors. The share is represented by a formal certificate, much like a bond. COPs can be placed privately or sold publicly. COPs generally are sold for large asset financing and tend to be used more for real property rather than personal property acquisitions.

Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The agreement by a municipal bond issuer to disseminate annual financial information and material event disclosures to the information repositories as defined by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB).

Coupon. The interest rate stated on the bond when it is issued.

Coupon Premiums. A couponing structure where the yields on the bonds are lower than the stated interest rates. This structure is typically preferred by institutional investors.

Coupon Discounts. A couponing structure where the yields on the bonds are higher than the stated interest rates. This structure is typically preferred by retail investors.

Debt Service. The periodic payment of principal and interest on debt.

Debt Service Reserve Fund. A fund that is held in trust until bonds mature. The fund will be utilized in the event that an issuer cannot make debt service payments.

Defeasance. A provision that voids a bond or loan when the borrower sets aside cash or replacement bonds sufficient enough to service the remainder of the borrower's existing debt.

Derivative. A financial instrument whose value depends on the value of an underlying asset, an index or a reference rate. Examples are swaps and options. Direct Debt. An obligation arising from the borrowing of money to be repaid over a period of time. If the money is borrowed over a multi-year period, the repayment will be subject to state and local constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial and administrative determinations. Direct debt includes voter-approved general obligation bonds, pension obligation bonds, unfunded pension benefit obligations, tax-supported lease obligations, capital leases paid from governmental funds and internal service funds, special assessment debt with a contingent County obligation, and other tax supported bonded obligations. Tax and revenue anticipation notes are not classified as direct debt.

Escrow. Money held by a third party on behalf of the other two parties in a transaction.

Governmental-type activities. Functions of the County that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. Examples of governmental activities of the County include general government, public protection, public ways and facilities and public assistance to name a few.

Gross Funded. Sizing the initial deposit into a fund in the total amount required. Interest earning will then be used for other purposes.

Lease Debt. Lease debt, or Lease Purchase Financing, represents long-term financing suitable for capital expenditures, including the acquisition or improvement of land and facilities. In California, tax exempt leases with non-appropriation or abatement clauses are not considered debt under the Offner-Dean rule, though they act as debt in a financial sense. Examples of lease debt include lease revenue bonds, sale-leaseback arrangements, operating leases, and certificates of participation.

Lease Revenue Bond. A lease revenue bond (or a lease-backed revenue bond) is a bond which is repaid through regular lease payments from project revenues. General Fund revenues may also be used to make lease payments.

Liquidity Facility. A line of credit, letter of credit, standby purchase agreement or similar facility, issued by a commercial bank, insurance company, or other financial institution, and delivered or made available to the Trustee for a bond issue.

Material Event. Certain events affecting a municipal security (bond) as defined under a continuing disclosure agreement meeting the requirements of Rule 15c2-12. Material Events are specifically defined for each municipal bond offering in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement.

Net Funded. A fund whose initial deposit is less than the total amount required for all related projects. The fund's interest earning are then used to supplement the initial deposit.

Optional Call. Bonds that can be redeemed at the option of the issuer.

Principal. The amount borrowed or the amount still owed, separate from interest.

Private Placement Providers. Bond investors who purchase bonds directly from the issuer, a private placement or direct purchase. The alternative is a public placement where bonds are offered to the public and sold through an underwriter. Private Placement Providers are typically large banks, mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds.

Sale-leaseback. An arrangement in which one party sells an asset to another party before leasing it back. The initial seller receives an infusion of cash from the sale of the asset but still retains its use. In many cases, the lease is structured to provide tax advantages to the original seller. This arrangement is frequently used so a party can finance capital expenditures or other programs with the equity in assets that they own. Senior Debt. Senior Debt is repaid before Subordinate Debt.

Subordinate Debt. Subordinate Debt is repaid after Senior Debt.

Surety Bond. A form of bond insurance an issuer can purchase from a bond insurance company in lieu of maintaining cash in a reserve fund.

Swaps. Agreements made between two parties to exchange a stream of periodic payments. Swaps are used to minimize risks associated with unpredictable or fluctuating market factors.

Underwriter. A firm that buys securities (bonds) from an issuer and resells them to investors.

Yield. The effective rate of interest paid on a bond or note. Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Contents

The Strategic Planning Process ...... 1

About the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association ...... 2 What We Do ...... 2 Our Organization ...... 3

Our Mission and Values ...... 4 Our Mission ...... 4 Our Values and Guiding Principles: Team SCERA ...... 4

Our 2015-2017 Goals and Initiatives ...... 5 Our Three-Year Goals ...... 5 Initiatives to Achieve Our Goals ...... 6

Implementation and Accountability ...... 8 Implementation ...... 8 Accountability ...... 8

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 11

The Strategic Planning Process

The Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association (SCERA) engaged The Results Group to assist in the development of this multi-year Strategic Plan. Through a robust information gathering and analysis process, SC ERA and the Consultant received valuable input from SCERA' s members, participating employers, affiliated organizations and the community. We used this input to inform our discussions with the SCERA Board of Retirement and SCERA Staff and developed broad goal areas covering the key functions in administering a public sector defined benefit retirement plan. Those key functions were further refined into goals and initiatives during SCERA's Board and Staff planning sessions.

The key to a successful Strategic Plan is for collaboration between the Board and Staff (Team SCERA) to ensure the goals and initiatives focus on the most important functions of plan administration. To that end, Team SCERA spent many hours together analyzing the various elements of successful plan administration and collectively arrived at the goals and initiatives that make up this plan. Our goal is to continue this process on a regular basis to ensure the plan remains dynamic and appropriately focused.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 12

About the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association

What We Do

SCERA is a public employee defined benefit retirement system that was established by the County of Sonoma on January I, 1946, under the authority of the County Employees Retirement Law of 193 7. SC ERA is administered by the Board of Retirement (Board) to provide retirement, disability, death, and survivor benefits for eligible employees of the County of Sonoma; Valley of the Moon Fire District; the Superior Court of California for the County of Sonoma; and other Sonoma County public agencies.

Under the direction of a ten member Board, of which one is an alternate member, SCERA Staff manages the day-to-day administration of the system. This includes ensuring timely and accurate payment of benefits, oversight of the investment of trust assets, providing information to and counseling members, accounting for contributions and investment income, maintaining prudent regulations, policies and procedures, and ensuring the Board is fulfilling its fiduciary duty to the members and their beneficiaries.

The Board sets the policy direction for the system, provides direct oversight of the Retirement Administrator as SC ERA' s chief executive, approves the investment program's asset allocation in accordance with the system's defined risk parameters, and carries out its fiduciary duties through regular meetings and oversight of the system's operations. The Staff is managed by the Retirement Administrator who oversees SCERA's Investment, Member Services, Finance and Retiree Services, and Information Technology divisions.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page I 3

Our Organization

: I Board of Retirement '~I~~~~~~~~~~~~

Julie Wyne Phyllis Reason Administrator I'------Admin. Aide

TBD Jim Failor Kelly Jenkins Diane Ginn Cathy Austin I Chief Legal Sr. Investment Assistant I Dept. Info. Accounting Counsel Officer I Administrator I Systems Mgr. Manager I ii --- -.:.""'_ -- ~ ----~

Stephen f i Elizabeth : I Jackie Purter Legal J Martin Pell Marsh 1 ! Anderson 'I Sr. Ret. Ben. Resources 1 Accountant Investment :l Benefits i Specialist (Contract} . I 111 : I Analvst ' I Coordinator 1, (Disability) i I

.I Cassandra Stinson Lisa Hogan i I Susan Begun Sr. Ret. Benefits Sr. Ret. Benefits : ! Accountant II 1) Specialist Specialist I

Alden Adkins Vacant Sr. Office Assistant Ret. Benefits Specialist II

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 14

Our Mission and Values I

Our Mission

The purpose of the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association is to provide and protect retirement benefits for its members and beneficiaries.

Our Values and Guiding Principles: Team SCERA

Stability. Maintain a sound investment program, a prudent funding policy and appropriate internal controls.

Communication. Communicate openly and accurately, achieving an organizational culture of teamwork and transparency.

Excellence. Model best practices in the industry and strive for continuous improvement.

Respect Be courteous, considerate and fair in the treatment of others, both within and outside of the organization.

Accountability. Take responsibility for decisions and actions; be open to constructive feedback.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page I S

Our 2015-2017 Goals and Initiatives

Our Three-Year Goals

GOAL 1: Deliver superior and responsive customer service.

GOAL 2: Foster an organizational culture that embodies SCERA's values.

GOAL 3: Achieve investment return objectives within SCERA's risk parameters.

GOAL 4: Maintain efficient and cost effective operational systems.

GOAL 5: Collaborate with associated organizations and increase public understanding of SCERA's mission.

The following pages present the initiatives that SCERA will undertake within each goal. The SCERA Annual Business Plan will provide specific tasks and deadlines to implement these initiatives.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 16

Initiatives to Achieve Our Goals

GOAL 1: Deliver superior and responsive customer service.

Initiatives: I. Maximize the use of business technology to optimize member service. 2. Expand retirement system engagement and education for members. 3. Seek member and Team SCERA feedback through periodic surveys, comment cards, and other means.

GOAL 2: Foster an organizational culture that embodies SCERA's values.

Initiatives 1. Maintain the collegial culture of Team SCERA. 2. Optimize communication and teamwork with a culture of trust and mutual support to achieve SCERA's strategic goals. 3. Develop a comprehensive engagement process to attract, educate and retain Board and Staff members. 4. Maintain and continue to refine effective Board meeting presentations. 5. Continue strategic planning and forward-looking leadership.

GOAL 3: Achieve investment return objectives within SCERA's risk parameters.

Initiatives

1. Appropriately assess and update SCERA's Investment Policy Statement, ensure adoption of appropriate benchmarks and report regularly to the Investment Committee/Board on the health of the investment program. 2. Select, monitor, and manage, and perform due diligence on managers and investment related service providers. 3. Conduct periodic asset/liability modeling and review relevant portfolio characteristics to match the investment program with the Board's risk tolerance and return expectations.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 17

GOAL 4: Maintain efficient and cost effective operational systems.

Initiatives 1. Maintain effective internal controls and compliance with all appropriate standards. 2. Regularly assess actuarial funding policies to ensure SCERA remains prudently funded. 3. Ensure the accuracy of the pension administration system. 4. Assess technological needs for all functions in the organization. 5. Ensure business continuity and disaster recovery needs are regularly evaluated and a plan is in place. 6. Evaluate and refine operational policies and procedures. 7. Evaluate long-term office space needs and develop an infrastructure plan. 8. Consider alternative staffing resources.

GOAL 5: Collaborate with associated organizations and increase public understanding of SCERA's mission.

Initiatives 1. Develop, implement and maintain an external communication plan. 2. Sustain a collaborative working relationship with participating employers, associates and vendors. 3. Foster a greater public understanding and appreciation of SCERA's role in administering pension benefits as a trusted plan administrator.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Page 18

Implementation and Accountability I

Implementation

A strategic plan is only valuable if it impacts the organization's decision-making and day-to-day behavior. To do that, SCERA is developing an Annual Business Plan, with specific tasks and deadlines to implement the strategic initiatives over the first 12 months. Staff will continue to develop Business Plans annually to ensure SCERA is moving towards its strategic goals and initiatives. Furthermore, since all Staff and Board members were extensively involved in development of this Plan (including the overall strategic direction, as well as the strategic goals and initiatives), it is now embedded in the culture and daily organizational decision making of Team SCERA.

Accountability

The Annual Business Plan provides for accountability at three levels:

1. Management: on a monthly basis, the Retirement Administrator will review progress toward the goals and timelines set forth in the Annual Business Plan.

2. Board: on a semi-annual basis, the Board will review progress toward the goals and timelines set forth in the Annual Business Plan.

3. Public: members of the public are invited to attend the Board meetings at which progress reports are presented, and to review progress reports posted on SCERA's website.

On an annual basis, or more frequently if necessary, Team SCERA will review and discuss the Strategic Plan to ensure its goals and initiatives remain relevant, and will revise the Plan accordingly.

Strategic Plan 2015 Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Agenda Item Number: 31 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report

Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Date: January 27, 2015 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): Supervisor Zane 565-2241 Countywide Title: Sponsorship of the A Call to Advance Social Equity Workshop Recommended Actions: Approve a contribution, in the amount of $1,000, to Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy’s workshop: A Call to Advance Social Equity Workshop. Executive Summary: This item requests a sponsorship of $1,000 for the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy’s workshop, A Call to Advance Social Equity: A workshop of inspiration and impact. A Portrait of Sonoma County, accepted by the Board of Supervisors on May 20, 2014, examines disparities within the County among neighborhoods and along the lines of race, ethnicity, and gender, and helps identify specific geographic places and populations in the County where there is potential to have a positive affect on long-term health outcomes. The sources of poverty are clear –– lack of education, lack of opportunities and lack of capital. The Portrait of Sonoma County highlights many of these inequities. This workshop will bring community leaders together to talk about the importance and broad impact of equity in Sonoma County, strategies that are actually making a difference in reducing disparities, and gaining specific commitments for action to advance those strategies by workshop participants. The workshop has been designed to support the implementation of the Agenda for Action described in the Portrait of Sonoma and to provide needed information and tools to address. At the workshop, Keynote Speaker Dr. Anthony Iton from the California Endowment will provide an overview of the importance of equity. He will be followed by a panel discussion focused on the three pillars from the Portrait of Sonoma: Education (community school movement and equity in our educational system), Health (quality, universal early childhood education), Income/Economy (investments to raise income and increase access to the economy). Participants will then have an opportunity to dig into those areas in more depth and form groups to carry out specific action on an ongoing basis.

Revision No. 20131002-1 The Leadership Institute plans to convene follow up meetings later in 2015 to evaluate progress on the actions identified at the workshop and determine additional actions necessary to support the Agenda for Action in the Portrait of Sonoma. Friday, February 6, 2015 - 7:30am to 12:00pm Location: Petaluma Sheraton 745 Baywood Dr. Petaluma, CA 94954 The Leadership Institute is a 501(c)(3) public charity, tax ID: 68-0440384

Prior Board Actions: None Strategic Plan Alignment Goal 1: Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community The County’s contribution to the A Call to Advance Social Equity Workshop will provide support to community groups, experts and activists to address inequities highlighted in the Portrait of Sonoma County. Fiscal Summary - FY 13-14 Expenditures Funding Source(s) Budgeted Amount $ 1,000 $ Add Appropriations Reqd. $ State/Federal $ $ Fees/Other $ $ Use of Fund Balance $ $ Contingencies $ 1,000 $ $ Total Expenditure $ Total Sources $ Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts (If Required):

Staffing Impacts Position Title Monthly Salary Additions Deletions (Payroll Classification) Range (Number) (Number) (A – I Step)

Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required): None.

Revision No. 20131002-1 Attachments: A Call to Advance Social Equity: A workshop of inspiration and impact Sponsorship Package Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: None.

Revision No. 20131002-1

This Social Equity Workshop will bring together experts and activists to address inequities in Sonoma County.

We know: The sources of poverty are clear –– lack of education, lack of opportunities and lack of capital.

We also know: We can act on the local level to make a difference. Sonoma County has many programs and policies designed to reduce poverty to even the playing field for everyone.

What we don’t always know: • How to get those programs to work for us; • How to improve and increase funding of those programs; and • How to invest in programs we want to support

At the Social Equity Workshop, we will: 1) Hear keynote speaker Dr. Anthony Iton, PhD. address inequity and its consequences on communities in Sonoma County 2) Hear local experts explore existing opportunities that are proven to increase equity 3) Leverage the Leadership Institute’s Fellows, and workshop participants, to implement successful strategies 4) Start a movement for greater equity that will continue and grow!

Panelists and breakout groups will address how to improve funding for, and expand: ● Micro-lending and asset building to provide essential capital for low income households and local small businesses ● Community Schools for greater access to an excellent education for the whole family ● Nurse Family Partnership and universal preschool for the earliest possible support of families and children in need

Future workshops in 2015 will address other successful approaches to reducing poverty.

Get on board now!

Be a part of this movement to make Sonoma County a social equity leader!

A Call to Advance SOCIAL EQUITY: A Workshop of Inspiration and Impact SPONSOR LEVELS AND BENEFITS

All sponsors will receive the following benefits: § Name and/or logo listed in Invitation § Name and/or logo listed in Program § Name and/or logo listed on Signs at event

Sponsors will receive the following additional benefits by giving level:

Sponsor Level Additional Sponsor Benefits by Level

§ Logo displayed prominently in marketing materials for workshop § Logo displayed prominently at workshop

Visionary Sponsor $5,000 § Full page ad in workshop program § Prominent location of sponsor table to distribute materials § Eight tickets to workshop

§ Listed as sponsor of breakfast or selected breakout group

Innovator Sponsor $2,500 § ½ page ad in workshop program § Sponsor table to distribute materials § Six tickets to workshop

§ ½ page ad in workshop program Catalyst Sponsor $1,000 § Four tickets to workshop

§ ¼ page ad in workshop program Entrepreneur Sponsor $500 § Two tickets to workshop

Call to Advance SOCIAL EQUITY: A Workshop of Inspiration and Impact SPONSORSHIP FORM

Sponsorship Level ☐ Visionary $5,000 ☐ Innovator $2,500 ☐ Catalyst $1,000 ☐ Entrepreneur $500

Sponsorship Type ☐ Business or Organization ☐ Individual or Personal

Tickets Donation If you cannot use all the tickets included in your sponsorship package, would you like to donate your extras to those with limited means who wish to attend? ☐ No thanks, we will use all our tickets ☐ Yes please, we will provide the number of our extra tickets by Friday, January 23, 2015

Contact Information

Organization Name Contact Name

Phone Fax

Address

City, State, ZIP

The Leadership Institute will contact the person listed above to confirm receipt of this confirmation form and to ensure full use of your entitled sponsorship benefits. For any questions regarding sponsorship levels or benefits, please contact Executive Director Tanya Narath at [email protected] or (707) 578-9133.

Payment ☐ Credit Card via Paypal ☐ Check enclosed to: Leadership Institute, 555 5th Street, Suite 300A, Santa Rosa, C 95401 ☐ We pledge to sponsor. You may expect our check by (date).

Please mail or fax (707-578-9134) this form to the Leadership Institute.

Thank you for your support!

Item 39

Sonoma County Planning Commission ACTIONS Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

Date: January 15, 2015 Meeting No.: N/A

ROLL CALL Greg Carr Paula Cook Tom Gordon Tom Lynch Don Bennett, Chair

STAFF MEMBERS Jennifer Barrett Jane Riley McCall Miller, Secretary Jeff Brax, Chief Deputy County Counsel

1 :00 p.m.: Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance. Please Be Courteous - Turn off cell phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.

Approval of Minutes - NIA

Correspondence

Board of Zoning Adjustments/Board of Supervisors Actions

Commissioner Announcements/Disclosures PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR CALENDAR

Item No.: 1 Time: 1:05 p.m. File: ORD14-0010 Applicant: County of Sonoma Staff: Jane Riley Env. Doc: Exempt Proposal: Amendments to Article 89 and related Zoning Code Sections to change the way that Second Dwelling Units can be used to meet the County's Affordable Housing Requirement for a Single-Family Home. Location: Countywide APN: Various District: All Zoning: Various

This item was continued off calendar and will be noticed before the hearing date. Sonoma County Project Review and Advisory Committee ACTIONS Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

January 15, 2015

COMMITTEE MEMBERS Blake Hillegas, Planning - Secretary Mitch Simson, Department of Transportation and Public Works Leonard Gabrielson, Surveyor Becky Ver Meer, Health Specialist Gail Davis, Agricultural Commissioner's Office Alex Rosas, Grading and Storm Water - Chair Keith Hanna, Sanitation - Vice Chair

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item No: 1 Time: 9:05 a.m. File: PLP11-0037 Staff: Melinda Grosch Applicant: John Reinecke Owner: Erwin Reinecke Con't from: N/A Env. Doc: Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal: A previously approved Minor Lot Line Adjustment has been completed resulting in two parcels of 201.1 acres and 96.4 acres in size. The subsequent Minor Subdivision of the 96.4 +/- acre parcel creates one parcel of 48.2 +/- acres and a Designated Remainder of 48.2 +/-acres in size. Location: 1100 Milk Barn Road, 1176 Limerick Lane, and 11450 Los Amigos Road, Windsor APN: 086-1 00-018 District: 4 Zoning: DA (Diverse Agriculture), B6-20 acre density, SR (Scenic Resource), VOH (Valley Oak Habitat), and RRD (Rural Residential Development), B6-40 acre density, and SR (Scenic Resource)

Action: Mitch Simson moved to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Minor Subdivision subject to Findings and modified Conditions of Approval. Seconded by Leonard Gabrielson and passed with a 5-0-2 vote.

Appeal Deadline: 10 days

Vote: Mitch Simson: Aye Leonard Gabrielson: Aye Becky Ver Meer: Aye Alex Rosas: Absent Gail Davis: Absent Blake Hillegas: Aye Keith Hanna: Aye Sonoma County Project Review and Advisory Committee Actions Date: January 15, 2015 Page2

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Abstain: 0 Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments ACTIONS Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

Date: January 22, 2015 Meeting No.: 15-01

ROLL CALL Dick Fogg Paula Cook Willie Lamberson Pamela Davis Don Bennett, Chair

STAFF MEMBERS Jennifer Barrett Sigrid Swedenborg Cynthia Demidovich McCall Miller, Secretary David Hurst, County Counsel Robert Pittman, County Counsel

1 :00 p.m. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance. Please Be Courteous - Turn off cell phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS REGULAR CALENDAR

Item No.: 1 Time: 1:05 p.m. File: UPE12-0059 Applicant: Tina Wallis Owner: Hunt-Ryd Winery Staff: Sigrid Swedenborg Env. Doc: Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal: A Use Permit for a winery with a maximum annual production capacity of 10,000 cases, with tasting by appointment only Monday through Friday (11 :00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and public tasting Saturday and Sunday (10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) with 14 catered agricultural promotional events per year consisting of: two with up to 150 participants, all of whom would be shuttled from an off-site location; two with up to 100 participants, all of whom would be shuttled from an off-site location; 10 agricultural, youth benefit and/or charity or similar events with 35 to 80 participants. No industry-wide events, no weddings, and no third-party rentals are proposed on the 7.25 acre parcel. Continued from: December 11, 2014 Location: 1722 Willowside Road, Santa Rosa APN: 034-140-040 District: 4 Zoning: DA (Diverse Agriculture) 86-10 acre density, VOH (Valley Oak Habitat) Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments Actions Date: January 22, 2015 Page2

Action: Commissioner Lamberson motioned to exempt the Use Permit from CEQA for purposes of denial and to deny the request with a straw vote to continue the item to February 5, 2015 at 1:05 p.m. for final resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Cook and passed with a 5-0 vote. Appeal Deadline: N/A Resolution No.: N/A

Vote: Commissioner Fogg: Aye Commissioner Cook: Aye Commissioner Lamberson: Aye Commissioner Davis: Aye Commissioner Bennett: Aye

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

Item No.: 2 Time: 2:00 p.m. File: PLP14-0028 Applicant: Hardeep S Takhar Owner: Caltrans Staff: Cynthia Demidovich Env. Doc: Categorically Exempt Proposal: Request for construction of a new soldier-pile retaining wall to repair damage from a slide located within State Highway 1 right-of-way adjacent to a single family dwelling, a mobile home park, and undeveloped State Parks lands. Location: 9965, 10000, and 9701 Highway 1, Jenner APN: 099-050-002, -014, and -018 District: 5 Zoning: No zoning designation within public right-of-way

Action: Commissioner Davis motioned to recommend approval of the Coastal Permit and Use Permit with an additional recommendation for the resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Cook and passed with a 5-0 vote. Appeal Deadline: N/A Resolution No.: 15-001

Vote: Commissioner Fogg: Aye Commissioner Cook: Aye Commissioner Lamberson: Aye Commissioner Davis: Aye Commissioner Bennett: Aye

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent 0 Abstain: 0 RECEIVED Summary Action of the JAN 1 6 2015 Environmental Review Committee BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 6, 2015 COUNTY OF SONOMA

Item No. 1: Time: 9:00 A.M. File: Park facility renovation Applicant: Regional Parks Staff: Scott Wilkinson Env. Doc.: Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal: Renovation of the Hudeman Slough boat launch and parking facility. Project elements include: demolition of existing boat ramp, dock and parking lot and replacement with new boat ramp, dock and parking areas in essentially the same configuration. New project elements include: a restroom with pump out storage tanks, a new ADA pathway from parking area to restroom, a small campground area with 5 walk-in tent sites with six new parking stalls to serve them, and one camp host trailer site. Location: 28020 Skaggs Island Road APN: 128-491-042 Sup. Dist: 1 Zoning: LEA, B6 1 OOZ w/ Biotic Resource Overlay (BR-F2)

Parks Planner Wilkinson gave a Power Point presentation, which is incorporated herein by reference. He noted that the existing facility was constructed in 1962. The facility has adequate room to park 20 currently, but is not striped. The State currently owns the land, and Regional Parks leases it for this facility. There were 5,400 visitors to this facility during 2014. There is a 24 foot length limit for boats. Staff is proposing to replace failing sections of asphalt paving in the entry drive, narrowing it to a 16 foot width, one-way. The ramp, gangway, pier will be removed and replaced in-kind; low freeboard doc (for kayaks). 1 ,200 square feet of invasive pepper weed would be removed and replaced with brackish marsh vegetation. A vegetated swale is proposed to mitigate for the loss of an estimated 75 square feet of brackish marsh vegetation. Grading will be limited to that needed to meet accessibility requirements. There will be 5 new walk-in, primitive campsites; campsites 1 & 2 will be ADA accessible. Other sites will have an earthen path. There may also be a camp host site, due to ongoing vandalism at this remote location. Accessible bathrooms will be added. The site is along the Bay Trail.

Questions from Commissioners:

Commissioner Rosas noted that just because the project site is not mapped by FEMA does not mean that it is not within a flood area. It is entirely within a flood area; the Base Flood Elevation here is likely 9 feet or greater. The discussion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be revised to reflect this. Also - MND's Hydrology (IX) items g-i should be revised to not be "no impact" since this project is within an unmapped flood zone.

Commissioner Riley agreed with Commissioner Rosas with regard to the flooding discussion. She asked how long the project would take to complete? Staff answered that it would be 45 - 60 days. Commissioner Riley asked if there would be water quality impacts from the spot-spraying of the invasive species? Staff indicated that they did not yet have that answer & Commissioner Riley indicated that a sentence should be added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address that potential. She asked about the vegetated swale; had the agencies signed off on that as adequate mitigation for loss of the brackish march vegetation? Staff indicated that they did not believe so. Commissioner Riley indicated that the agencies would need to agree.

Chair Simson noted that on page 70 under Transportation, the checkboxes did not match the discussion. Two of them were checked to indicate that mitigation was needed, but the discussion indicated that they were less than significant. This should be corrected.

Public Hearing Opened: 9:27 am

Speakers: No speakers Public Hearing Closed: 9:27 am

Commission Discussion: No further discussion.

Action: The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the subject application and makes the following determination:

Commissioner Rosas moved to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with modifications as discussed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Riley and passed with a 5-0-0 vote.

An Expanded Initial Study is required. An Environmental Impact Report is required. An Environmental Reconnaissance is required. A supplement/Addendum to existing EIR is required. _X_ A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended.

Notes:

Mitch Simpson: Aye Gail Davis: Aye Jane Riley: Aye

Becky VerMeer: Aye Alex Rosas: Aye

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: O Sonoma County Cerlificate of Compliance REVIEW

SONOMA COUNTY PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

FOR REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2015

Item #1 File: PLP14-0059 RECEiVED

Applicant: Audrey London and Peter Crandall JAN 2 3 20\5

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Owner: Same COUNTY OF SONOMA

Staff: Scott Hunsperger

Location: 1420 and 1440 Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg Sup. Dist.: 4

APN: 089-040-015 and -016

Zoning: LIA (Land Intensive Agriculture) B6 - 20 acre density, Z (Second Unit Exclusion), SR (Scenic Resources), VOH (Valley Oak Habitat)

#Requested: 2

Size: Parcel 1: 0.24 acres +/ Parcel 2: 1.42 acres +/-

Improvements: Parcel 1: Vacant Parcel 2: House and Cabin

Services: Septic

#Approved: 2

Criteria: These parcels are considered legally separate as they were created by

1. conveyance (grant deed or Government Patent) in which fewer than five parcels were created prior to March 1, 1967.

Parcel 1: Created by: Book 1633 of Official Records, Page 299; Recorded on December 8, 1958, S.C.R. Reference Documents: None

Parcel 2: Created by: Book 1425 of Official Records, Page 230; Recorded on March 20, 1955, S.C.R. Reference Documents: Book 1633 of Official Records, Page 299; Recorded on December 8, 1958, S.C.R. ..,··- .... ··-

Appeal Deadline: January 30, 2015